Obama Will Be The 44th President

I raise my right hand and solemnly swear: This will be my last political blog post until after the election. I just needed to vent a bit at the morning's CNN headline: McCain takes hit from bailout collapse.

What the heck is going on here??? McCain suspended his campaign to head to Capital Hill and work for the economic bailout. When he called for postponing the debate, he was derided in the media for dodging Obama and not being able to multitask. As a result, he reluctantly attended the debate. Then, when the bailout fails, he gets the blame???? It failed by 12 votes. Do you think McCain staying in Washington on Friday, Saturday and Sunday might have helped sway 12 stinking votes? I would say YES! So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Furthermore, how does Obama get off scott free on this? He also supported the bailout. He also went to Capital Hill to show his support. The vote only got 60% of the House democrats to support it. I'll bet he could have swayed 12 of them had he stayed! I'm beginning to think this debate was not a good idea. I'm optimistic that some kind of modified plan can salvage this fiasco, but I'll wager that McCain will be staying clear due to the inevitible backlash his support would cause.

Look, I am a registered Republican. I am voting McCain all the way. He could have picked the ghost of Telly Savalas to run as his VP and I would still vote for him. I'm not trying to convince anyone how to vote. I'm just pointing out the obvious discrepancies in reporting when it comes to our Presidential candidates (and their VP nods, but that is another issue I will not touch). Why do I want McCain? Because he will be good for the economy, and he won't f$%& up our national security. Most of all, he will be good for my pocketbook. That's how 99% of Americans vote anyway.

How does McCain help me? I am a doctor. My wife is a doctor. We have sacraficed 10 and 7 years of our lives respectively to our training. We make jack during that time and sit on top of well over $100,000 in debt, EACH! So as a result, I am 33 and I have ZERO dollars in savings. All of that is a sacrafice to do what we love, and doctors get reimbursed with pretty decent salaries after that time to help catch up on the years we trained and saved nada. Still, we don't make anywhere close to what high paying lawyers or even business executives make. So what, it's not all about money. But don't you think the doctors who take care of you and your families deserve to be paid well for the hard, risky work they do?

Now, when I am trying to find a job, nobody is hiring because it's an election year. A Democrat in the White House is bad for business, and many groups are holding tight to see how the election goes. They have TOLD ME THIS! Great. After the election, if Obama raises taxes on the "wealthy" who make a good salary (but definitely aren't rich), that means every doctor in radiology. Many other types of doctors also make this much. That means my future colleagues will be making less, and will be less likely to hire. Super great. And the icing on the cake is that Obama also wants to overhaul the health care system. I know, he doesn't say he wants a National health care plan, but it doesn't matter. I know the details of medicare/medicaid reimbursement, and he will make tiny little cuts on paper that have overwhelming consequences to the money doctors get paid for seeing patients, both with and without insurance. So now if I do get a job, I have to work harder and still make less. Super duper great!

So when you wonder how all this Presidential election stuff affects you, consider that the choice has real ramifications for a lot of people. Even if you are not a doctor, consider that a lot of younger, smart people may decide medicine is just not worth the sacrafice. I know a lot of current doctors that already feel that way. So when you start to get older and have to see the doc or make a stay at a hospital, enjoy Dr. Srinivasaraghavan and his unintelligible accent. Having a friendly foreign medical graduate take care of you was probably worth that vote for Obama.

Yay! Tailgating!

Sounds like we could have some fun this weekend...

http://therockreport.blogspot.com/2008/09/tailgating-gestapo-gone-bonkers.html

Actual Debate Analysis

So I doubt many of us watched the full debate last Friday. As a public service, I would like to offer up my personal debate analysis. Before I get started, let me set the scene so you don't think I'm some political wacko watching a debate on a Friday night with nothing better to do! We had friends in town and went out for dinner and drinks. We recorded the debate and watched it late night with beer and buzzed. MUCH MORE ENJOYABLE!

Anyway, I feel it my patriotic duty to report back my findings, as the news headlines the following couple of days have been an absolute joke. I really don't think debates even matter anymore. The only thing that matters is you get a highlight reel zinger in there that gives you the "victory."

McCain won this debate hands down.
Going in, I genuinely thought Obama would make McCain look like a bumbling fool and talk circles around him with not much substance, but plenty of catchy rhetoric. That was clearly not the case. McCain was on the offensive throughout the debate. He made very clear and concise arguments, and repeatedly pointed to his strengths while contrasting them against Obama's weaknesses. McCain had Obama on the defensive the entire night. So much so that you could repeatedly see Obama get rattled while McCain was talking. He would mutter, move around and smile uncomfortably. He even had nasty white spittle on his lower lip betraying his obvious nervousness. Seriously! We were totally grossed out and laughing. He was sweating pretty good too. These physical tells proved to me that even Obama thought he was losing.

Obama has trouble thinking on his toes.
Whenever Obama answered a new lead question first, he stumbled a bit. It is clear that he is reliant upon the teleprompters that he uses at every campaign speech he gives. Without the teleprompters, you could see him struggle to think. He gave a lot of "umms" and "ahhs" as he tried to somehow work his way into his regular talking points. Then he would sound fine.

Obama agreed with McCain repeatedly.
Whenever McCain answered first, he sounded calm, cool and collected. He obviously was very well prepared for the questions they fired at him. When it was time for Obama to respond, at least 5 or 6 times, he said, "I agree with John." McCain only agreed with Obama once about the need for a financial bailout - DUH!

Subversive formalities?
I wondered why McCain addressed Obama as "Senator Obama" while Obama addressed McCain as "John." Seems a bit informal. I wonder if he was trying to belittle him in some way. Maybe he was just being friendly, but it seemed very odd to me.

Worst response of the night. (Small font for space)
Lehrer: As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?

Obama: Well, there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed. We don't yet know what our tax revenues are going to be. The economy is slowing down, so it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year.

But there's no doubt that we're not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done. There are some things that I think have to be done.

We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.

We have to fix our health care system, which is putting an enormous burden on families. Just -- a report just came out that the average deductible went up 30 percent on American families.

They are getting crushed, and many of them are going bankrupt as a consequence of health care. I'm meeting folks all over the country. We have to do that now, because it will actually make our businesses and our families better off.

The third thing we have to do is we've got to make sure that we're competing in education. We've got to invest in science and technology. China had a space launch and a space walk. We've got to make sure that our children are keeping pace in math and in science.

And one of the things I think we have to do is make sure that college is affordable for every young person in America.

And I also think that we're going to have to rebuild our infrastructure, which is falling behind, our roads, our bridges, but also broadband lines that reach into rural communities.

Also, making sure that we have a new electricity grid to get the alternative energy to population centers that are using them.

So there are some -- some things that we've got to do structurally to make sure that we can compete in this global economy. We can't shortchange those things. We've got to eliminate programs that don't work, and we've got to make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less.

So in Obama's response to what he would CUT to pay for the bailout, he proposed increased spending for 4 programs, including my absolute favorite - building broadband access for rural farmers. Ever hear of satellite??? Please don't overlook his agreement with McCain that we need to drill to produce more domestic oil.

Obama and Afghanistan???
Obama supports a troop surge in Afghanistan to make sure we win that war. He said it implicitly in this debate. I actually stopped the debate, rewound it and listened again to make sure I heard it correctly. He said it. So how is this any different from the troop surge in Iraq??? He refused to acknowledge that the surge was a good plan or even worked in the same debate a question or 2 previously. Then he proposes the same plan in Afghanistan! This guy is clueless. See if any news article brings up this fine point of his foreign policy. That single position undermines his entire argument against McCain and Iraq.

The Bush strategy.
Obama tried to repeatedly link McCain to Bush. It's the primary Democrat strategy. Bush is unpopular, so try to make people think a vote for McCain is a vote for another 4 years of Bush. This one cracks me up. McCain is so unlike Bush that his own party was hesitant to nominate him! He almost became Independent a few years ago. Hannity and Limbaugh, the blowhard Conservative radio hosts HATED McCain and decried his nomination. McCain smoothly outlined multiple disagreements he has had with the current administration. However, Obama is correct that McCain does vote the administrations way almost 90% of the time.

Obama scored too.
Ready to lead. That was a major point McCain tried to make regarding his record. He tried to show naive positions Obama currently has or had taken in the past. He even called Obama "dangerous" to our national security. While I agree that McCain has more qualifications in foreign affairs, taking a trip to the wilderness of Afghansistan has nothing to do with that. Furthermore, I don't think Obama would be a dangerous President, and it ended up making McCain sound a little silly.

In conclusion, the 4 people that watched the debate at my house all agreed that McCain had scored a convincing victory. Our opinions were backed by the TV media analysts immediately after the debate. The conservative guys said McCain had won and had Obama on the defensive. The real tell is that the liberal commentators said it was a draw! If the liberal pundits didn't claim a victory, then you know McCain did very well. I don't understand the media headlines the next day that claimed Obama the winner. They definitely seem to have an agenda, and I felt I needed to bring you the truth.

I think Obama will improve next week here in Nashville, and I can't see McCain pulling out another near perfect performance. The end result will probably be a pretty even debate, but will be received as a rousing Obama victory in the media, so I advise everyone to watch for themselves to get the whole story.

Happy Friday!

Oregon State 27 - 21 Southern Cal

I'm Not Alone!

Listen to Yourself

On My Soapbox...

Over the past few days, I have found myself cheering for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. That’s because our esteemed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen has stated that $700 billion is necessary to save the US Financial market. I’m no economist, but $700 billion is not a small chunk of change, even for the US government. But between President Bush and Paulsen, $700 billion will be given away – details are sketchy (this article is the best I could find), but the consensus thought is that the big winners will be Wall Street companies (AIG, Bear Stearns, etc.) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I was trying to find out details of the proposed plan today, but I couldn’t find very much at all. In fact, $700 billion is a ballpark estimate, and experts say that this figure could rise to as high as $1 trillion!

Personally, I’m outraged by this. I understand that some support is necessary, but who came up with the math that they need so much money? Here’s an idea: take this bailout money, infuse the FDIC with this money and let the companies fail. Companies cease operations, go bankrupt, or get acquired all the time - look at WorldCom, Delta, Delphi, or a host of other companies. The government shouldn’t be obligated to protect businesses, and even if it feels it’s aiding its citizens by stopping the failure of the economy as a whole, shouldn’t there be a little more investigation as to why the businesses and markets are failing before they hand over $700 billion?

The US government currently feels that $700 billion will save our economy and prevent a recession. I say, how do you know it will save our economy? Why is it that these companies are in such a bad way? Sure the credit crunch and the mortgage crisis are major issues, but is that the only answer? Are these companies managed well, are they viable businesses in the 21st century, will they continue to need government sponsorship to operate after the bailout, is there any chance they will pay back their “loan” from the government? I did 3 months of research before I bought a $1,300 TV. Companies I audit spend thousands on studies and research to determine if a $2 million Oracle system is good for them. Even government spends millions before major building projects like highways and bridges, usually around $100 - $200, million are funded. Did anyone do any studies, perform any research, interview any company officials, or look at any market data before coming up with this $700 billion figure?

I feel as if the government thinks it has to make a snap decision. If he keeps this up, George W. Bush will go out with the all-time lowest approval rating - Herbert Hoover and Andrew Johnson are both excited to get a friend on the Mt. Rushmore of loathed presidents! The Republicans want $700 billion now, today. The Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi in the lead, are trying to push Paulsen to send a plan for $150 - $200 billion now, and then if more is needed a second bailout can occur. It sours my stomach, but I have to agree with Nancy Pelosi’s plan, as I think it gives the economy a chance to correct itself without being acquired by the US government. If it needs some more cash later, so be it. But at least more data and information will be available, and better decisions can be made. Take some extra time and make the right decision. Heck, with $700 billion, you could probably pay back most of the money the investors lose if these companies fail!

Damn you Hoover!

In a country where are schools are constantly under-funded, energy costs are sky-rocketing, and retirement funds are being depleted faster than they can be refilled, how are we suddenly able to come up with $700 billion as if from now where? I’d like to see Congress come up with legislation (and money) to improve schools, hire teachers, research and deploy alternate energy sources, and let me live comfortably in retirement. Those are things I’ll pay for. And for the most part, I’ll pay what it takes because I understand the consequences of inaction. There have been studies, investigations, and conclusions made in those areas, mostly because no one will take any action without an abundance of information. There still has been minimal government funding of those issues, and with the current crisis, the chance of those issues being taken up dwindles.

Yet when our economy has a downturn, which happens nearly every 10 years, we suddenly want to artificially prop it up with money we don’t have, for reasons we don’t fully understand, and with consequences we can’t possibly foresee. Maybe the government will wise up and these issues will spur our leaders to take intelligent, thought-out, and informed action. Yeah, and maybe I’m a Chinese jet pilot.

Election Killers

I consider myself a young man. I am 33 years old and have had the opportunity to vote for President only 3 times. Of course I actually do vote every year, and even in some primaries (anyone who does not has no right to make any political commentary). I could go on and on about the issues with our political system, but I will spare you of that. The point of this post is thus: every election has some cooked up pseudo issue that seems to turn the balance of momentum and ends up being a big part of the outcome. Whether it has any relevance to the election or the candidate's ability to lead, it is brought up in a big "GOTCHA" moment for maximum political effect.

1976
I was 1 and have no recollection of Jimmy Carter's ineffectual campaign. All he had to do was say I am a democrat and Nixon was a Republican. Nixon was not popular at the time!

1980
I was still too young, but Reagan had a similar strategy. I am a Republican and Jimmy Carter is a Democrat. Carter also failed miserably as President.

1984: Reagan's Age
The first election I remember. Reagan was the oldest President ever, and the Democrats and Mondale tried to use it against him. Reagan famously neutralized the issue in the second debate saying, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." He went on to win in a landslide.

1988: Willie Horton
Bush Sr. took on Michael Dukakis, governor of Massachusetts. The Bush campaign ran an ad about Dukakis' prison furlough program that allowed a convicted murderer to commit a rape on leave. A damning ad that may have turned the tide in a close election.

1992: "Read my Lips..."
Bush lost to Clinton for one reason: the economy tanked while he was in office. The damning ad run by the Dems showed a clip of Bush in 1988 saying, "Read my lips: no new taxes." Of course he had raised taxes, and he lost miserably. Incidentally, the main reason was actually Ross Perot, and not the ad.

1996: Age Strikes Again
Bob Dole tried to take on the very popular Clinton without success. Again, age became an issue, and it was compounded by Dole's war injury that made him appear even older. Although no "Gotcha" moment occurred, Dole did famously refer to the Dodgers as the Brooklyn Dodgers. It really didn't matter. Clinton won easily.

2000: Clinton's Ghost
Again, no major "Gotcha" moments, as younger Bush successfully campaigned on a moral platform in wake of Clinton's multiple scandals in office. Gore was boring and had to try and dissociate himself from his former boss, and he lost in the closest margin ever.

2004: Swift Boat
Now the pattern has emerged and is crystal clear. When Bush beat Kerry, an independent group attacked Kerry mercilessly on his Vietnam service record while serving on a Swift boat. Swift Vets and POWs for Truth stated that he had lied and embellished his record, and Kerry was unable to respond or clarify the issue. Bush wins easily, and the term "Swift Boat" enters the political lexicon. (Obama even recently said he would not let the Republicans "Swift Boat" his comments about putting lipstick on a pig regarding Palin).

2008: The Bridge To Nowhere
It is painfully clear that both parties are maneuvering to make this the "Gotcha" issue of 2008. Pictured at the top of this post, the Bridge to Nowhere was designed to connect the Alaskan coastal city of Ketchikan to its airport on sparsely populated Gravina Island. The funding was approved by Congress, but Palin stated famously that she rejected the funds saying, "Thanks, but no thanks" in her convention speech. Seizing upon a potential Swift Boat issue, Democrats quickly announced that Palin had publicly supported the bridge while running for governer of Alaska. Furthermore, she accepted the funds but used them for other projects. It seemed they had that "Gotcha" moment for 2008.

However, the Democrats should be careful what they ask for. The headline story on CNN.com today shows how the Republicans have COMPLETELY TURNED THIS AROUND ON OBAMA AND BIDEN! Both senators voted to approve the funding for the Bridge to Nowhere as part of a larger transportation bill. You may think that it was just a small part of a larger bill. However, a Republican senator specifically introduced an amendment to the bill that exclusively rejected funding for the Bridge to Nowhere. Biden and Obama rejected that. Even worse, the proposed amendment by Senator Coburn had redirected those funds to Hurricane Katrina ravaged Louisiana to repair damage to roads and bridges. Of course, that money never went to Louisiana!

I think this issue will continue to get air time, and may turn out to be a defining moment in this election. The upcoming debates may solidify that. However, if it doesn't work out, there is still enough time for another "Swift Boat" attack!

NFL Injury Terminology

So you know what the hell the talking heads are talking about...

• sports hernia - a weakening of the abdominal muscles that results in your nuts really hurting.
• stinger/burner - a nerve injury caused by a direct blow to the top of the should that drives it down and causes the neck to bend in the opposite direction, resulting in tingling moving down to the fingertips. This typically only occurs in the situation described above, so when a commentator describes any hard hit to any part of the body that results in the player being shaken up as a "stinger" you know he's a moron.
  
• high ankle sprain - broken leg
• shaken up - concussion
  
• a [INSERT BODY PART HERE] - e.g. a hamstring, short-hand for an injured hamstring. Commentators are too lazy to use adjectives. So don't be confused and think someone cannot perform because of the presence of a vital body part.
• took a tough hit - hit in the balls
• turf toe - jammed toe
• hip pointer - a bruised hip
• landed awkardly - tore every ligament in his knee
  

Lou's Still Got It

So last night I'm watching College Gameday Mid-Evening Intermediate, or whatever it's called these days, and I happen to catch one of Lou's pep talks for some random team I don't care about. Well, it seems that ESPN is giving Lou a little more slack in how much he's allowed to ramble, so he started to give some sort of pep talk aimed at said team. Well you know what, Lou is awesome. He got that crazy look in his eyes and started screaming something about something, I don't quite remember what it was because I think I may have blacked out for a minute, but let me tell you when he finished I was fired up. I head-butted Liz and punched a hole in the wall. Well maybe I didn't do those things but I felt like I could have lifted the old Mazda 626 and flipped it over. I don't know how good of a coach Lou Holtz was, but I now know how he got his teams to win all those games. Excuse me while I go tackle a stranger walking down the street. Go Lou.

Michigan State Pep Rally

Alright guys. It's another big week for the Irish. Just look at that f#$&ing picture above and remember how angry you were when we lost to those punks in 2005. Colin and I were sitting on the field and saw the game-losing TD in OT right in front of us. I personally didn't see the flag planting until people talked about it later.

Now here's your pep rally, here is a postgame photo from the rematch in 2006 after our miraculous comeback win. I also DEMAND that you click this link to listen to perhaps the greatest sports meltdown in the history of radio. This is courtesy of Mike Valenti, a radio talk show host in Michigan on AM 1270. He is a Michigan State homer who hosts a radio show called The Sports Inferno. After our win in 2006, he had an on-air meltdown that can only be best described by another site as the "most heinous, depraved descent into that mirky blackness captured by our modern recording equipment."

CLICK HERE TO LAUGH YOUR BUTT OFF FOR 15 GLORIOUS MINUTES!!!

As far as the game, I don't think many expect us to win, but we are no longer being overlooked as we were last year. My pre-game analysis is pretty simple. On offense, we have to be able to convert 3rd downs. We have been awful at this in our 1st 2 games. This reflects on the O-Line, RBs and on play selection. On defense, we have to be able to slow Javon Ringer. He will get his yards, no doubt. However, we have to stop him in key situations. I'm talking about 3rd and short or inside the red zone. That will put us in the ballgame.