Senator McCain sent an email out to supporters describing in more detail the Homeownership Resurgence Plan he alluded to during this week’s Presidential debate. The plan sounds reasonable. As I understand it, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for failed mortgages, the government would purchase failing, bloated mortgages that are about to be foreclosed. The mortgages would then be rewritten on more affordable terms, and the homeowners would continue to make their mortgage payments under the new terms — payments that are more affordable and would keep the homeowners in their house and off the street.

Read more after the leap.

For example, rather than losing their home because the current mortgage is for more than the value of the home and the payments are out of reach, the mortgage might be rewritten for less and the payments made more affordable. Instead of paying on a $300,000 mortgage for a home valued at, say, $210,000, the Homeownership Resurgence Plan might rewrite that mortgage at $240,000, greatly reducing the principle and interest and putting the monthly payment within reach, while only absorbing twenty percent of the debt instead of the whole mortgage.

To me, a taxpayer in his first home, who did not purchase outside of his means and doesn’t really want to foot the bill to save those who did, this plan still sounds like the best option I have heard so far. The taxpayers get hit for some of the debt, but not the whole bill, while homeowners are given a second chance to keep their home. The market doesn’t become swamped with recently foreclosed homes, putting the government into the real estate business, and the homeless population doesn’t see a sudden huge increase. I could endorse such a plan as this, as I understand it.

What I would like to see is two additional things: first, the Community Reinvestment Act must be scrapped. You can assign blame to whatever party you choose, but Presidents from both parties have had their hands in the shaping of this act, originally signed into law by President Carter (Democrat from Georgia) in 1977. The law was bad then and has never become better. It virtually forced lending institutions to make loans to people who were financially unable or historically unwilling to repay their debt. That’s not Capitalism, and it is not the makings of a free market Republic. First and foremost, this act must be immediately repealed, and must included legislation preventing Congress from passing the same act under another name.

Second, legislation and a plan must be implemented preventing double-dipping in the Homeownership Resurgence Plan. Those who take advantage of the plan must be held accountable for their new mortgage as should be expected of any borrower. There should be limitations put upon the beneficiaries of this plan that prevent refinancing of the new mortgages and bankruptcy discharges. This must be a one shot deal: either you make it under the new mortgage, or you don’t. Those who show that they aren’t willing to do their part to ensure that they keep their home should not expect nor be allowed to take advantage of the system a third time.

Senator McCain’s letter follows below. [What, if anything, has the other party's candidate proposed?]

I’d love you know what you think. Your comments?

Joe

My Friends,

Millions of Americans on Main Street are feeling the effects of our current economic crisis largely brought on by corruption and greed at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street. Our next president must come into office with a plan to address the very root the failing housing market.

Last night, during my debate with Senator Obama, I announced my plan to fix the root of our problem and I’d like to share a little more with you today.

If elected president, I will direct my Treasury Secretary to implement an American Homeownership Resurgence Plan to keep families in their homes, avoid foreclosures, save failing neighborhoods, stabilize the housing market and attack the roots of our financial crisis.

America’s families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage.

For those that cannot make inflated payments or their mortgage exceeds the value of their home, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages.

This Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes.

By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.

I am ready to lead our country out of this financial crisis and I am ready to work with anyone and everyone who will help. Together, I know we can work together to find solutions for these challenging times. Please do your part today and spread the word about my new plan by forwarding this email on to your neighbors, friends, family and coworkers. Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely,

John McCain

P.S. Homeownership represents the very core of our American economic system. This is not the time for politics. We must move aggressively to provide relief and stability for all Americans.

Read more at Average Joe American.US.

• Governor Palin asked Senator Biden, “Can I call you Joe?” He said she could, but then always referred to her as “Governor.” Interestingly enough, every time he mentioned Senator McCain, he, like Obama, used the familiar “John.” Have these Democrats no respect whatsoever?
• Gwen Ifill cut Governor Palin off in the middle of her response to a comment from Biden, saying “We’re out of time on this one.” Cut her off in mid-sentence. Clearly she has to keep control of the proceedings, but to cut her off in mid-sentence? It’ll be interesting to see if she does the same to Biden at any point.
• Governor Palin refers to “Barack” on taxes. And, if I’m not mistaken, it sounded clearly like she was trying to make a statement by using his first name. Defending her running mate, for example, by showing that two can play the name game.
• Senator Biden, of course, sneaks in the “Bridge to Nowhere” tag that he has made his rally cry of late. If this were a drinking game, my bet is that “Bridge to Nowhere” would be the drinking cue.
• Having been told at the opening of the debate that she could call him “Joe,” Governor Palin takes her cue from being referred to as “Governor” and opts not to use Biden’s first name, but rather refers to him as “Senator Biden.” Showing Biden the respect he shows her while showing Obama the lack of respect that he showed Senator McCain.
• “How long have I been at this, what, five weeks?” Governor Palin refers to her own lack of tenure in the campaign in responding to Ifill’s question about what programs they might cut to pay for the economic bailout bill. By throwing in her supposed “lack of experience” before Biden could, she takes that issue off the table.
• Biden refers to investing in “clean coal,” while earlier in the campaign he said “no coal in America.” Suddenly he’s in favor of every alternative energy source (except for Drill Here, Drill Now). Ifill called Biden on his support of such initiatives, saying he hasn’t always been in support, and he said that he has. Somehow, I doubt that Ifill would call him on it if she wasn’t sure what she was talking about.
• Ifill did indeed cut Biden off in the middle of an answer based on time restrictions.
• An Obama / Biden administration would have no differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual couples. He says, “That’s what the Constitution calls for.” I wonder how long it’s been since he read the Constitution. Governor Palin says she would not support same sex unions if it goes in any way toward the redefinition of marriage. She says a McCain / Palin administration would not prevent things like hospital visitation and things of that nature, but that they clearly don’t support gay marriage. Biden then claims that he and Obama do not support “redefining marriage from a civil side.”
• Governor Palin refers to the surge and counter-insurgency measures in Iraq as a part of the plan to eventually withdraw troops from Iraq. She points out that Obama voted against funding for troops after saying that he wouldn’t, then said, “Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that. You said it was a political move…” Biden comes back and says “I didn’t hear a plan.” He calls Senator McCain the only odd man out on the plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. “We will end this war.” Governor Palin charges, “Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq.” She also refers to Biden saying Obama wasn’t ready to be Commander-In-Chief. Biden chuckles, then charges that Senator McCain voted against funding the troops. He points out that McCain said he voted against the bill because it included a timeline for withdrawal. Of course he voted against a timeline, but that’s what he voted against, not the funding.
• Biden cannot say which is a greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan. His answer seems to say that Pakistan is more of a threat because they “already have nuclear weapons” and “Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon.” Biden says if an attack comes on the homeland it will come from Al Qaeda planning in the hills of Pakistan. Governor Palin comes back with General Petraeus’ comments about the danger of a nuclear Iran, citing that he is there, in the region, and certainly knows better than Biden. She goes on to discuss the instability in Ahmadinijad’s own mind. Biden claims that Obama “did not say he would sit down with Ahmadinijad.”
• Governor Palin says a two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) is the solution in the Middle East. She goes on to say that we must make it clear that we will not let our allies (Israel) face attack from other nations. Biden comes back, “No one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden.”
• Governor Palin says, “for a ticket that talks about change, there’s too much finger pointing into the past.” Biden replies, “Past is prologue.”
• On the use of nuclear weapons: Governor Palin says dangerous regimes cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Our nuclear weapons are used as a deterrent, which is a safe use for nuclear weapons. Biden said Senator McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. He says the first thing Obama did in the Senate was reach across the aisle to Senator Lugar. Again, the Obama campaign drops the only bipartisan name he can drop, even though Senator Lugar has clearly stated that he never endorsed Obama.
• Biden says he and Obama have constantly been calling for more money and more troops in Afghanistan. So, my question is, we want to end the war in Iraq and escalate it in Afghanistan? I can live with that, if we can end the war in Iraq with victory, but how can Obama / Biden talk about peace and bringing the troops home if they just want to redeploy them to Afghanistan.
• Governor Palin accuses Obama / Biden of being for the war before they were against it, and says “Americans are craving for straight talk. If you were for the war, just say you were for the war.”
• Biden says we should draw the line on going into Darfur when we don’t have the resources. He says he never supported Senator McCain’s strategy on the war. Apparently, Biden knew everything that would happen before it happened, and actually predicted it all in advance of the war with 100% accuracy. Governor Palin replies, “Tomorrow morning the pundits will say who said what at what time and we’ll know more about this.” Touche!
• When asked about how a Biden administration would be different from an Obama administration if as VP he had to ascend to the Presidency, Biden said “God forbid if that were to happen, it would be a tragedy of catastrophic proportions.” I wonder if he was referring to the rhetorical death of Obama, or to the resulting Presidency of Biden. He then went on to say that he would continue Obama’s policies. Governor Palin, responding to the same question, referred to the fact that they are both Mavericks and don’t agree on anything. She said that she would then pursue drilling in ANWR, which Senator McCain is opposed to. Good answer from the Governor, no answer from Biden.
• In response to more comparison between Obama / Biden and President Bush, Governor Palin says, “Say it ain’t so, Joe. There you go pointing your finger back to the Bush administration again.”
• As VP Palin would lead energy independence in America, working with children of special needs. As VP Biden would be to tell Obama when he disagrees with him. Biden says VP Cheney has been the most dangerous Vice President we’ve had in the history of America.
• Biden says that he is much better off than most Americans now. He then referred to his son in the military and “not knowing if he’s going to make it,” then choked up a bit. Or, pretended to. Don’t know if it was genuine or not, but my wife is a pretty good judge of such things, and she laughed at his dramatic moment.
• Governor Palin refers to the fact that not much was accomplished in either the current Democrat led Congress or the past Republican led Congress. Biden says that McCain has not been a Maverick on many things, including the war. Really? As virtually the only Senator to speak out in favor of the surge, and still supporting victory in Iraq, there is no other accurate way to describe Senator McCain than “Maverick.”
• After earlier saying he hasn’t changed in 35 years in the Senate, Biden now talks about how he has changed by compromising. Governor Palin responds to say that they got things done in Alaska by not worrying about who got the credit.
• Biden claims to have been a great bi-partisan leader and reaching across the aisle. He says he has never questioned the motives of another Senator, and that’s why he has the respect he has in the Senate. Governor Palin comes back to talk about how she appointed people in Alaska regardless of their party affiliation. She says you have to walk the walk not just talk the talk.
• Closing statement from Governor Palin: “I want to assure you, John McCain and I are going to fight for America. We’re going to fight for the middle class families like mine. We also have to fight for our freedom.” She quoted Ronald Reagan saying “We are just one generation away from extinction.” She says “there is only one man in this race who has every really fought for you, and that’s Senator John McCain.”
• Closing statement from Senator Biden: talks again about the neighborhood he grew up in. So tired of hearing about Scranton, or Wilmington, or whereever it is politically convenient for him to be from at any given moment. “It is time for American to get up together. … Barack Obama is ready to be the next President of the United States of America.”

It seemed that in most cases, Ifill let Biden have both the first and last word. She started most every question by allowing Biden to answer first, then allowing Governor Palin to respond, then allowing Biden to respond to the Governor’s response. Clearly, Biden recieved more mic time than Governor Palin, and was given the opportunity to make both a first and last impression on almost every question, while Governor Palin’s answers were allowed to be lost somewhere in between.

I would sure like to see the Obama / Biden campaign quit running against the Presidency of George W. Bush and start running against the Republican nominee and his running mate. It seems that every time the going gets tough, Obama / Biden start comparing themselves to President Bush.

Both candidates dropped the name of President Reagan during the debate.

Ifill gave Governor Palin the chance to make the first closing statement, which of course gives Biden the last word again. No surprise there.

Governor Palin delivered a very powerful closing statement, while Biden spouted more of the same rhetoric we’ve heard over and over and over.

My take? The McCain campaign clearly took the cuffs off Governor Palin and let her do her thing tonight, and she was very prepared to address the issues. She seemed very comfortable and confident and, in fact, at times took control of the debate away from the Moderator in order to address comments made by Biden.

In contrast, Biden seemed to be Obama’s yes-man. Nearly every comment he made was either an attack against Senator McCain, an attack against President Bush, or praise for Barack Obama. Of course, he is expected to support his running mate, but it would have been nice to see Joe Biden out there, not Obama’s yes-man.

Flipping through the channels to see what the media is saying, it seems that the majority of them have been saying Governor Palin did quite well. They referred to her as “Main Street, not Wall Street.”

Just as last week when Senator McCain kept his cool and delivered a commanding performance while Obama interrupted, stammered, and got hot under the collar, Governor Palin was professional, cool, calm, and in control of the situation while Biden smirked, smiled, and chuckled. And just as last week when the media tried to call Obama the winner while McCain was the clear winner, I won’t be surprised if the media tries to give this one to Biden when Governor Palin was the victor.

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at Average Joe America.US.

By the same token, I expect to see Governor Palin giving the human gaffe machine that is Joe Biden a political lesson tomorrow evening in the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, regardless of the fact that the cards are already stacked against her. It has been well reported that the VP Debate Moderator, PBS’s Gwen Ifill, has written a pro-Obama book to be released at the time of the next Presidential inauguration in January. It would take a fool to believe that this Obama-phile could possibly be unbiased in her moderation of tomorrow’s debates.

This is a call to arms! It is up to the conservative base to speak out now, before the debate, about the impossibility of a fair debate tomorrow night. We must speak out now, before it can be considered a reaction to the results of the debate. We must speak openly and loudly, everywhere that we have a voice, that the Vice Presidential debate is already skewed in favor of the Obama campaign.

Take it to work. Tell your friends. Send it to everyone in your email address book. Post it on every website where you have posting privileges. Post it on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace. And comment about it on every post you see about the debates every place that you can.

Then, when Governor Palin shows Joe Biden for the bumbling oaf that he is, not only will the Governor win the debate, but she will have done so against the odds, and there will be no doubting it. We have less than 36 hours to get the word out about this travesty in the debate system.

In addition, I encourage you to join one of the many live blogging events that will be available online tomorrow evening during the debate. But I challenge you: instead of visiting one of the conservative, right-friendly live blogs, join the left-leaning live blogs events. Openly support your candidate in the forum. Make it clear to them that the debate moderator is not impartial. Be so outspoken about the situation and the process of the event that they want to kick you out of their forum.

Are you in?

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at Average Joe American.US.

The current Senate session was scheduled to end today. Based on the behavior of the Democrat leadership in the Senate in the past, they would likely have adjourned the session without accomplishing anything toward economic recovery. That’s the way Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid operate.

Read more at Average Joe American.US.

Tonight, after calling many of the remarks during John McCain’s acceptance speech Thursday evening “lies” — and blatantly calling Senator McCain a “liar” — she turned the tables on Governor Sarah Palin and attempted to call her a liar, as well. She opened the show with a comment that Governor Palin lied about selling the private jet that belonged to the state of Alaska on eBay. She let the teaser hang for nearly the entire hour before elaborating on her “definition” of the word lie.

Maddow claims that Governor Palin, in her speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night, claimed to have sold Alaska’s private jet on eBay. She went on to claim that it was, in fact, untrue, because the jet did not sell on eBay. She explained that the Governor did indeed list the jet on eBay three times — each with no sale — before finally selling it to a broker of some sort for $2.1M. She then went on to say that Alaska paid $2.7M for the jet, and therefore Governor Palin’s sale of the private jet actually cost Alaskan taxpayers money.

Now, let’s get real and put aside the liberal smear politics for a moment, shall we? First, when was the last time you purchased any type of vehicle, used it for a while, and sold it at a profit? Used cars are rarely sold for a profit, and I would expect the same of airliners. The fact that Governor Palin recovered 78% of the purchase price of the unneeded private jet for the state of Alaska is significant. That’s $2.1M added back into the state budget while at the same time eliminating fuel and maintenance costs on an airplane that was not needed.

Second, if you read the full text of Governor Palin’s speech, or view the video (embedded below — start watching at the 20 minute mark) of the speech, you will see that Governor Palin never claimed to have sold the jet on eBay. What the Governor said was:

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay. [emphasis added]

That statement, in fact, is true. In fact, by the liberal Maddow’s own admission, Governor Palin “put” the jet on eBay three times. More importantly, when the jet failed to sell on eBay, rather than give up, she found a buyer to take the unneeded property off the state books.

It is thoroughly disgusting that of the mainstream media, only one news network seems to be able to report without any bias slant — to report the news, the truth, and the facts. The other news networks can’t seem to report on the news without first spinning it to support their favored candidate. With so many Americans casting their votes based upon not what they know, but rather what they hear in the media, it should be a crime for the media to falsify their news reports in such a manner as to intentionally mislead the American people.

Direct video link.

Your comments?

Read more at AverageJoeAmerican.US.

Joe

After all of the scandalous reports about Governor Palin’s family that have come out since the announcement of her joining the ticket less than a week ago, I was a little disappointed to see that delegates at the convention were wearing buttons in support of Governor Palin that refer to her as hot.

If we want to stand behind Governor Palin on her record as Mayor and Governor, and on her stances on the issues, and on what she brings to this party, this ticket, and what she can bring to this country as John McCain’s Vice President, I think we should drop the practice of exploiting her as a “hot” VP candidate. She’s our candidate, and some members of the party may refer to her in a so-called affectionate manner as “hot,” but I personally think that calling Sarah Palin “hot” is just as bad as asking how she can do her job in Washington and raise five children at the same time.

Governor Palin’s gender is not and issue that will have any impact on her ability to govern. Governor Palin’s family is not an issue that will have any impact on her ability to govern. She has proven her ability to reform and to take on the big interest oil companies and even corruption in her own party. She is our candidate, and I for one do not believe that we should be referring to her in any other manner.

Please, let’s stop doing what the Democrats are doing: using the gender of Governor Palin as an issue in this election. Man or woman, Governor Palin has proven her ability to govern has nothing to do with her gender. Just as Barack Obama’s ethnicity has nothing to do with his ability to govern.

Vote for McCain / Palin because they are best for America, and drop the non-issues.

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at AverageJoeAmerican.US.

Let’s start off with a very early comment by 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft that sets the tone for the entire interview.

Senator McCain tried to steal the Democrats thunder by announcing that Alaska’s conservative first term Governor, 44 year old Sarah Palin, would be his running mate. KROFT

Here, we see that Kroft has personally declared the timing of Senator McCain’s announcement as planned to “steal the thunder” from Obama’s acceptance speech the night before. When the announcement was first rolled out, the McCain campaign specifically stated that they waited until the day after Obama’s acceptance speech to announce so as not to appear to be stealing the spotlight from Obama. No fooling that liberal media, though, is there?

More.

She subscribes to John McCain’s agenda. OBAMA

It seems like just the kind of person who would appeal to voters in states that you absolutely have to win. And they have to win. KROFT

Thankfully, Governor Palin’s stance on the issues does align quite will with Senator McCain’s, unlike that of their rival party. Obama and Biden couldn’t be more different unless they were on opposite sides of the aisle.

In response to questions from Kroft about recent campaign activities:

I had a beer last night? Where does the story come from that I don’t like beer? … The reason I bowled wasn’t because I was trying to get votes. If I’d been trying to get votes I would have avoided a bowling alley. The reason I was there was to campaign. OBAMA

Let’s see, “trying to get votes” is apparently not the same thing as “campaigning” to the Obama camp. Dictionary.com defines campaigning as An operation or series of operations energetically pursued to accomplish a purpose. Let’s see, to accomplish the purpose of getting elected President requires getting votes. The purpose of campaigning is to get votes. Unless, I guess, if you’re name is Barack Obama, in which case the purpose of campaigning is more to slander your opponent than to get votes for yourself.

More.

Let me tell you the reason I picked Joe Biden. Number one, he can step in and become President. Number two is that if I’m in the room making the kinds of tough decisions that the next President’s going to have to make, both on domestic policy and on international policy, then I want the counsel and advice of somebody who’s not going to agree with me 100% of the time, but in fact somebody who’s independent enough to push back and give me different perspectives and make sure that I’m catching any blind spots that I have, and Joe Biden doesn’t bite his tongue. OBAMA

You had some differences over pretty substantial issues. KROFT

You know, actually we haven’t. Look, Barack was right. He not only got it right about being against the war, I got it wrong about underestimating the incompetence of this administration when we gave the President the power we gave him. … Bush told me he wasn’t going to war, I thought they meant it [Barack was] standing outside, [he] knew they didn’t mean it. BIDEN

[Joe] is blunt when he’s right, and he’s blunt when he’s wrong, and that means that I can trust his counsel. OBAMA

So, they haven’t had any differences over “pretty substantial issues?” Interesting. Need a refresher? Check them out on the issues. Barack Obama. Joseph Biden. Obama apparently recognized that Biden was lying.

There is no choice I could have made where the person’s going to agree with me 100% of the time, and I wouldn’t want that person. What you want is somebody whose core values you believe in, who you trust, who you think is a straight shooter. OBAMA

Nice save attempt, but we weren’t fooled.

More.

I think that I have a record that people can go back and examine and decide whether or not I mean what I say, no matter how I say it, whether I’m consistent with what I’ve asserted I care about. BIDEN

I like who [Joe] is, and I think the American people will. OBAMA

As Kroft looked like he might actually get a little meat into the interview, he asks Obama to explain what Biden’s duties would be as VP. The official job description in the U.S. Constitution lists only two responsibilities: (1) to assume the role of President should the President become unable to fulfill his/her duties, and (2) to preside over the Senate and cast a vote when needed to break a tie. Biden fielded this question with something we should all be used to from the Obama campaign by now: a non-answer.

I don’t want to go and just hang out. … I’m not looking for anything other than to be part of the change [Barack's] been talking about, and very bluntly, that I’ve been talking about. BIDEN

So, in addition to the constitutionally mandated duties, a Vice President Joe Biden wouldn’t just “hang out,” but would fulfill the very important role of being a part of the change that Obama has been talking about.

Biden had more to say when asked how he would contribute to the campaign.

Go into Scranton and Wilmington and Sacramento and other places and say I know the guy. Politicians know quality when they see it in other politicians. BIDEN

“I know the guy.” Imagine that. Obama picked a running mate that can honestly tell voters, “I know the guy.”

More.

The thing about [Barack] that everybody misunderstands, {turning to Obama} Boss, here we go, we may have our first difference here. But all kidding aside, here’s the deal. Everybody knows the way he’s caught on to this yearning in the American public. But the second piece of that is, it’s not only the idealism. You’ve gotta be tough to be the President of the United States of America. BIDEN

I didn’t cut anything out there. I was anxiously waiting to hear Biden describe what he called “our first difference,” but he never got it out. Where did it go? Is it that Biden thinks you have to be tough to be President of the United States, and maybe Obama doesn’t? Or did Biden just lose his train of thought so badly that he forget what he was going to say? Or maybe he just didn’t want to offend the Boss? Obama explains, sort of.

The fact that I don’t go out of my way to call people names or try to take cheap shots, and that I try not to throw the first punch, but see if I can try to find a way to work together with people, sometimes leads people to underestimate, uhh, what, what I’ve got. OBAMA

Should I go there? Should I mention the first comment out of the Obama campaign after Senator McCain introduced his running mate, reducing Governor Palin to “the former mayor of a small town of 9000?” Obama is lying. His is nothing buy cheap shots, and the sound bites make that clear enough without further elaboration from me. And what’s this about not taking the first shot? Isn’t that why we were attacked on 9/11, because President Bill Clintion avoided taking the first shot when he had the opportunity?

The interview wraps up with about thirty seconds more of fluff, then the announcement that 60 Minutes has invited the McCain ticket to join them for a similar interview. I, for one, hope he turns them down.

Any questions?

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at AverageJoeAmerican.US.

Obama planned to finish his campaign schedule Monday with stops in Michigan and Wisconsin, two battleground states the campaign views as possible wins, before heading home to Chicago to monitor the hurricane situation and decide his schedule for the rest of the week. …

In an e-mail sent to hundreds of thousands of his supporters, Obama said, “Please give whatever you can afford, even $10, to make sure the American Red Cross has the resources to help those in the path of this storm.” …

He also sent a text message to cell phones, asking for $5 for the Red Cross. ..

In his brief remarks in Detroit, Obama praised organized labor, which typically works on behalf of Democratic candidates.

There it is, the campaign line, praising the unions, hoping to win their support in November. Apparently, he found time somewhere during his campaigning today, as Hurricane Gustav battered the Gulf Coast, to address the announcement that Governor Palin’s daughter is pregnant.

“Let me be as clear as possible,” Obama said. “I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.”

But we know why he had to come out in such a way, don’t we?

Obama became annoyed when asked about a Reuters news service report that quoted an unnamed senior McCain aide saying that Obama’s name appears in liberal blogs speculating about Trig’s parentage “in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their ‘campaign of change.’ “

It enrages me that the Democrat chosen above all others to run for President of the United States allows himself, his campaign, his party — whatever — to become involved in the type of attack politics that they have engaged in since moments after Senator McCain introduced Governor Palin as his running mate. I witnessed the effects of their attack politics firsthand in the reaction that my wife has had to the various different scandals that have emerged in the past three days.

When Senator McCain introduced Governor Palin, my wife was so happy about the selection that she actually called her mother at work to tell her about it. Over the past three days, my wife has already begun to become disillusioned with Governor Palin, even though not one of the scandals has stuck or been proven as true. It is merely the mention that such things might be true that causes the kind of damage that the Democrats know is necessary if they hope to have any chance of victory in November.

Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin are the only choice for America. Set aside all of the issues and rhetoric that we hear every day. Set aside the attack politics flowing shamelessly from the Democrats. Set aside Conventions and all the hoopla that surrounds them. Consider this:

Yesterday, responsibility for Anbar Province in Iraq was officially handed over from the United States to Iraq. This is an historic event in the war in Iraq. Senator John McCain made a statement praising this monumental event. Barack Obama made a few statements praising organized labor and condemning attacks on Governor Palin’s family.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy experience is so nonexistent that he doesn’t even know what is happening around him today.

Your comments?

Joe

As I was looking at her Wikipedia page on Friday upon the first mention of her name on Fox News, I thought I would take a look today and see if I could spot any changes. What I found, instead, is represented in the screen capture above.

Governor Palin’s Wikipedia page had been hacked! I reloaded several times and received the same result. Then, in about the amount of time it took me to upload my screen capture to Twitpic and post it to Twitter, the hack was gone. I refreshed the Wikipedia page again after posting it to Twitter, and everything was back to normal.

Certainly, if Governor Palin’s page was edited at her own request (or even that of her campaign, really), then someone has surely defied commonly accepted Wikipedia etiquette. Wikipedia frowns on people editing their own content, or orchestrating the editing of it.

However, what of the individual(s) that perpetrated / orchestrated the above hack? Is that not more of a violation of common decency than editing your own Wikipedia page? It is both fortunate and unfortunate that the page was returned to normal so quickly. Fortunate, because those looking for information on Governor Palin will once again be able to access it at Wikipedia. Unfortunate, because the legitimacy of the screen capture above will surely be called into question unless someone independent of me happened to stumble on it as well.

Naturally, liberals around the country will get a chuckle out of this. But can you imagine their outrage if this had come upon the page of Barack Obama?

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at AverageJoeAmerican.US.

As I was looking at her Wikipedia page on Friday upon the first mention of her name on Fox News, I thought I would take a look today and see if I could spot any changes. What I found, instead, is represented in the screen capture above.

Governor Palin’s Wikipedia page had been hacked! I reloaded several times and received the same result. Then, in about the amount of time it took me to upload my screen capture to Twitpic and post it to Twitter, the hack was gone. I refreshed the Wikipedia page again after posting it to Twitter, and everything was back to normal.

Certainly, if Governor Palin’s page was edited at her own request (or even that of her campaign, really), then someone has surely defied commonly accepted Wikipedia etiquette. Wikipedia frowns on people editing their own content, or orchestrating the editing of it.

However, what of the individual(s) that perpetrated / orchestrated the above hack? Is that not more of a violation of common decency than editing your own Wikipedia page? It is both fortunate and unfortunate that the page was returned to normal so quickly. Fortunate, because those looking for information on Governor Palin will once again be able to access it at Wikipedia. Unfortunate, because the legitimacy of the screen capture above will surely be called into question unless someone independent of me happened to stumble on it as well.

Naturally, liberals around the country will get a chuckle out of this. But can you imagine their outrage if this had come upon the page of Barack Obama?

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at AverageJoeAmerican.US.

Sarah Palin has elected executive experience as both Mayor and Governor. In fact, she brings the only elected executive experience to the Presidential contest. She has a history of not standing in favor of the big oil companies. She is staunchly pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage (though she does favor protecting gays from discrimination). She is in favor of offshore drilling in ANWR, and has taken many steps in her tenure as Governor of Alaska to lower energy costs for the citizens of her state.

With very high approval ratings as Governor of Alaska, a strong Conservative track record, and sound fiscal policies, Palin is the most inline with the stance of John McCain on the issues. As a woman, Palin might possibly bring to the Republican fold those Hillary supporters who supported her because she was a woman.

Most interestingly, how exactly does the Democratic VP pick Joseph Biden plan to debate someone like Palin in the agreed upon upcoming VP debate? I don’t see it happening. I think what we’ll likely see is Sarah Palin having Joseph Biden for lunch.

Consider this Average Joe a supporter of the McCain / Palin ticket for President. After the Obamafest this past week, it’s nice to see some real news for a change. This is a whole new ballgame.

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at Average Joe American.

I’m no expert, clearly. Just an Average Joe American with an opinion on everything, including politics and the VP selection of Senator Joe Biden from Delaware. Just my opinion, mind you, nothing scientific.

Because Obama and Biden are both politicians, I don’t expect that we would ever hear from either of them the truth about why Senator Obama selected Biden as his running mate. So I’ll offer you my opinion.

First, everyone knows that Senator Obama has barely four years of Federal service experience. Regardless of how much you may want change, experience is a key factor in running a country. Would you expect Walmart — literally the largest company in the world — to hire someone to be their CEO after working only four years as a Store Manager? Of course not. They would look for someone with a proven track record of success — someone with experience. Which is why, I think, that Senator Obama selected Senator Biden as his running mate.

Senator Biden has been serving in the United States Senate since 1973. That’s 35 years! That’s ten years longer than Senator McCain, and 31 years longer than Senator Obama. Joe Biden brings Washington political experience to the Democrat ticket. Experience that Obama clearly does not have.

One problem with that, as I see it: change? Senator Obama has been running on a platform of change since early in the primaries. Change and hope. My question is, how exactly do you continue to run on a platform of change when your running mate has more Washington political experience than your opponent? What exactly can the junior Senator from Illinois hope to change? Maybe his platform and his campaign slogan? Just a suggestion.

In addition, Senator Biden is known to be quick lipped. In fact, he is known to frequently engage his mouth before engaging his mind. I could link to the videos and articles about Senator Biden describing Barack Obama as the first articulate African American candidate for President (he even said Obama is “clean”); Senator Biden saying you can’t go into a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts in Delaware unless you have a slight Indian accent; Senator Biden (remember, he’s a Democrat) saying he would be honored to run either with or against Senator McCain (a Republican) for the White House; Senator Biden saying that Barack Obama can be ready to lead someday, but that the Presidency doesn’t really lend itself to on-the-job training. I could link to all of those videos and articles, but if you’re reading this, you’ve already seen them some place else.

So what does Obama stand to gain? Briefly, he adds some experience to the ticket (though that is arguably both a plus and a minus). That added experience includes foreign relations experience, as Senator Biden twice sat as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You’ll remember that serving in the Illinois State Senate prior to his recent election to the United States Senate, Senator Obama has zero foreign relations experience. In fact, the only foreign relations experience he has is his recent trip abroad, which was more of an international campaign rally than anything else. If you can think of anything else beneficial that Senator Biden contributes to the ticket, please let me know.

And what does the junior Senator from Illinois stand to sacrifice by selecting Senator Biden as his running mate? Simple: his entire campaign platform. First, as I already mentioned, how can he run on a platform of change with one of the most tenured Senators as his running mate? That’s establishment politics if it ever existed. Second, Senator Joe Biden is old. Just five years younger than Senator John McCain. The Obama campaign can no longer use the uncertainty of McCain’s age in his golden years as a campaign attack tool, since his running mate is nearly as old as McCain. And what about all of those negative comments Senator Biden made about Barack Obama when he actually thought he had a chance at winning the nomination? And the supportive remarks he made about Senator McCain? You’ve surely heard predictions that the Republican party is going to have a field day with Senator Biden’s untimely comments.

What else does he lose? Well, one might venture to say that he may have lost any chance to win the state of Indiana after passing over our junior Senator, Evan Bayh (thank God, as that man is just evil in office — again, my personal opinion). He may also have given up on the support of Senator Clinton’s supporters. It was reported today that Hillary has released her delegates and turned them over to Senator Obama. Unfortunately, that’s merely a symbolic gesture as the delegates have nothing to do but ensure Senator Obama receives the nomination that he has already locked up.

I just thought of another reason that Senator Obama may have chosen Senator Biden of Indiana’s Senator Bayh. Should Obama win the White House in November, then the Senate seat of his running mate would be vacant. Those vacant Senate seats are filled by appointment made by the Governor of the state. The Governor of Indiana is Republican Mitch Daniels. The Governor of Delaware is Democrat Ruth Ann Minner. Governor Daniels would certainly appoint a Republican to the vacated seat of Democrat Senator Evan Bayh, possibly tipping the entire balance of Congress in favor of Republicans. By selecting a running mate from a state with a Democrat Governor, the Democrats can avoid losing a seat in the Senate by winning the White House. Just a thought.

But what about the issues. Have you seen a solid comparison between Senator Obama and Senator Biden on the issues? Here’s a partial look at where the candidates stand on the issues:

I’ve highlighted in yellow the issues where Senators Obama and Biden either differ or one of the two have made no public declaration. You’ll see, they are not at all unified on the issues.

And one last thing. Okay, two. First, I’m sick and tired of hearing all of the talk about being rich, or being like an average American. Can you honestly name anyone in Washington politics that is like an average American? No, you can’t. They are all rich. They are rich because they have been successful in life and in business, which is exactly what you would expect of someone before you give them a chance to participate in running the country. If they couldn’t manage a business or their own personal affairs, how could they possibly manage the country?

And second, give me a break already on all of the negative campaigning. I’m just saying, can’t we stick to the issues? I know, this is politics and that’s how it goes, but it’s a pretty sad thing to accept it so easily.

As I said, I’m no expert, nor political scientist. Just an Average Joe with an opinion. I hope I’ve helped to make you think a little.

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at AverageJoeAmerican.US.

Let me start by clearly explaining my position. I am a Christian Conservative, registered as a Republican. I do not vote the party line, and have actually voted for Democrat candidates in the past (not for President, but for other national, state, and local offices). I have always cast my vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. I believe firmly in the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage (though I don’t believe they should carry the weight that they do in deciding how to cast our vote in November). I believe that we pay too much for gasoline (regardless of what they pay elsewhere in the world) and that we pay too much in taxes. I believe that our political election process is the best in the country, but still far from perfect and in need of an overhaul. I believe that families should have the right to educate their children in whatever way they choose, so long as they meet a standard of education (which, unfortunately, dictates some form of testing for verification purposes). I do not believe that the constitution says anything about the separation of church and state (in fact, it dictates only that there will be no establishment of a national religion) and that if money is allowed to play such a major role in politics, so then should religion be allowed to assert it’s influence. Our nation was established on Christian principles, and if we lose touch with those principles, we are no longer the nation that we once were. I believe that, as the longest enduring democracy in the world, we have a duty to foster freedom throughout the world. I don’t believe we should do so by force, unless force is required to free a nation’s people from an oppressive dictator who denies them of their freedoms and other basic rights. I believe that we must finish what we start, and that living with the freedoms that our nation provides requires from each of us a price to be paid in defense of that freedom.

All of that being said, I will now elaborate.

I am firmly pro-life. I believe that life begins the instant that fertilization occurs. At that point, it is not up to us to determine whether a person should be given a chance to live or not. At Saddleback, Senator Obama spoke of the need to find a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. He spoke of this as if it is more important than protecting the live of unwanted babies. I find it very difficult to place a higher value on the lifestyle of someone who has become pregnant by accident than on the value of that life she carries inside her. It is my belief that we can reduce both unwanted pregnancies and abortions by taking responsibility for our actions and not getting pregnant in the first place. It’s a simple task, really. Don’t commit the act if you aren’t prepared to live with all possible consequences, including unwanted pregnancy, and to deal with them in a manner that causes no harm to anyone of any age, including the unborn. There will always be a number of women who become pregnant because they are victimized in one or another. These women are not personally responsible for committing the act that created the unwanted pregnancy, and shouldn’t be forced to suffer the consequences. The unborn baby is also not personally responsible for committing the act that created the unwanted pregnancy, and shouldn’t be forced to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, people are victimized in hundreds of ways every day and must suffer the consequences. If you burn down my home, I must suffer the consequences (and so might you, if you are caught). If shot in a drive -by shooting, I must suffer the consequences. If faced with the unwanted pregnancy of a loved one, regardless of how it was created, I must suffer the consequences. That’s just a fact of life, and it’s something we should learn to live with and quit expecting a quick fix to solve the problem for us. I suggest adoption be considered as an alternative to abortion.

Though being firmly pro-life, I do not believe that abortion should be such a hot topic in choosing our next President. Our system of government prevents the President from taking any personal action that would either make abortion legal or illegal on his own. He must work with the 535 members of Congress to pass such legislation, and frankly, it’s never going to happen. Let’s face it, as long as our political system is based upon constantly running for the next election, we’re never going to see 536 people agree on such a hot topic as abortion. Granted, the President can nominate his pro-life or pro-choice candidates to the Supreme Court, but they, too, must be confirmed by the 100-member Senate before being seated on the bench. Though possible, it is not likely that we would see an all-liberal or all-conservative Supreme Court. And let’s be honest, liberals really don’t have much to worry about from a Conservative bench. The Conservatives are historically strict constitutionalists and less likely to legislate from the bench than are liberal justices, and therefore less likely to write a sweeping decision outlawing abortion. So while the topic of abortion is of critical importance when selecting our Senators and Representatives, it’s nothing but hot air in the Presidential debate.

Which brings me to the topic of marriage. I believe that marriage was established by God (we only created the ceremony and legal documentation) as the union of one man (originally Adam) and one woman (originally Eve), and that we do not have the authority as God’s creation to modify this institution. God’s first commandment to the first couple was to “be fruitful and multiply.” As that is only possible with the involvement of a man and a woman, I do not feel that there is any need for further debate on this topic. Adam and Eve can be fruitful and multiply, Adam and Steve can only multiple with a pen and paper, or calculator, or some other such instrument that does not result in the continuation of the species.

Again, I do not believe that marriage should be such a hot topic in choosing our next President, and again for the same reasons as I stated earlier on abortion. Should a rogue Judicial Branch decide that same-gender marriage should be legal, we as a nation have the tools at our disposal to rise up and take action. The legislative process provides for us to petition each other for the passing of a law to eliminate the legalization of same-gender marriage. Our 535 representatives — whom we can choose or unchoose with our votes — can pass such legislation to overturn any such Supreme Court decision. Utopia, right? Maybe, but I believe that if we focus our efforts on what really matters and what can best be affected by whom, then maybe it isn’t so unrealistic to expect such supposedly utopian results. Marriage is not an issue for the President to be overly concerned with, as he has the least impact of all elected officials on the definition of marriage. This, like abortion, should be a major factor in determining how we vote for the Senate and Congress, not the President.

So where does that leave the President? Can he influence education? Clearly President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act is evidence that he can. Can he affect the price of gasoline? Yes, and more easily so if we allow him to tap our own natural resources and not rely so heavily on foreign oil. Can he reduce (or raise) our taxes? Well, if you’re an American reading this, you probably received at least one of President Bush’s tax rebates or so-called economic stimulus checks over the past eight years.

Most importantly, the President is (or should be) our chief foreign policy expert. No one can be expected to have more knowledge or more expertise of world affairs than the recognized leader of the free world. And while all of the issues I’ve discussed so far can have an impact on the way we live our lives from day to day, nothing can have a greater impact on life as we know it than living our lives in fear of invasion, attack, or the downfall of our democracy. No single issue is as important to the furtherance of liberty as foreign policy. We must elect a President who is familiar with world affairs, who knows and has worked with world leaders, who has life experience to suggest that he can make strong, sound judgment calls, and who has the courage to stand upon his convictions and the humility to admit when he is wrong and to amend course as needed. If our President cannot be the leader in world affairs, there is nothing he can do domestically to compensate for the damage he might cause.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, I am a Christian Conservative. I registered to vote as a Republican because the Republican platform most consistently aligns with my values and my beliefs. I am not so closed-minded as to believe everything the Republican party says, however. I vote my values, my beliefs, my convictions. When this Presidential campaign cycle began so many months and so many candidates ago, I was a Fred Thompson supporter. When he dropped from the race, after much consideration and study, I fell in behind Rudy Guiliani (who, by the way, does not share my stance on abortion). When John McCain became the last Republican candidate standing, and the only Democrat choices remaining were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I reluctantly threw my support to the candidate who would achieve the greater good on the world front and do the least damage here at home: John McCain (actually, upon researching tonight, I realize that in January 2007, before Guiliani and Thompson were in the race, I had chosen McCain). Now that we are down to two major party candidates (and Bob Barr for the Libertarians), and I have seen those two candidates speak in the unique setting provided at the Saddleback Civil Forum, I no longer stand behind John McCain because he’s all that’s left. I support him now because I think that going forward, America needs a man like John McCain to preserve all that our founding fathers had in mind some 2000+ years ago.

I share with you now the volley that took place in 140 character snippets on Twitter as I watched the Saddleback forums. The debate was between myself and one petersantilli (his Twitter handle and, presumably, his name). For clarity, I have arranged the “tweets” as a thread, with replies falling in the appropriate place. I have also colored my tweets in Red and his tweets in Blue. Any additional editorializing I’ve added will appear in black italicized text.

Enjoy.

Watching the Saddleback Civil Forum with Obama and McCain. Wow, this should make the choice clear for anyone! http://is.gd/1Dky

No kidding. The choice is clearly OBAMA!

I don’t know what you’ve been watching to come up with that choice.

Been studying Obama since Dec 2007, didn’t change my opinion @ Saddleback

You’ve been studying, what, nearly his entire career in the Senate then?

Senator Obama has not yet completed his first four-year term in the Senate. Merely pointing out this lack of national experience to petersantilli.

Exactly what people are looking for, less tenure in DC.

In the middle of watching the Saddleback forums, CNN seems to have pulled the video. That’s MSM corruption if ever it existed!

MSM conspiracy. Corrupt because they won’t let you spin it to your liking

Not looking to spin it in any way. Just looking to watch it, and the video suddenly became unavailable. It’s up again now.

But no spin is needed from me. The candidates give it all the spin that it needs.

Got the video going again, but the embed code points to a dead URL. Was going to post it for others to find easily.

Obama’s a kind heart. Warm, sincere, thoughtful, and not-so-hot-headed-and-quick-on-the- “AT CONCEPTION”-trigger to get ur Christianity vote

When asked at what point an unborn baby has human rights, Senator McCain replied immediately, “At conception.” Senator Obama shuffled and stalled while he came up with the following response: “that’s above my pay-grade,” suggesting that it is for God to decide. It is, of course, for God to decide, and we must either choose to interpret what God’s decision is, or to accept that God’s decision is that life begins at conception. Kudos to Senator McCain for having the conviction to take a stance and make a decision on what he believes. It concerns me that a Presidential candidate might be hesitant to make some kind of decision on the topic. This is also the first point at which the Obama supporter engages in attack mode. To suggest that McCain’s stance is only given for the purpose of wooing Christian voters, and that Christian voters are so easily swayed into how to vote.

If you knew me at all, you’d know mine is not a “Christianity” vote, just a “Patriotic American” vote.

I’m not a McCain man, so much. But given the current choices, there is no other choice to make.

I don’t believe it really matters where POTUS stands on marriage, abortion, etc., regardless what my own views are….

…don’t think he can really effect change there. Most importantly is, will he lead us to our downfall….

…by making poor decisions on the world front? Or will he stand up for American principles and democracy?

Meaning: to lead us to the downfall of American society as we have known it for over two centuries by being unable to form a thought, decision, or strategy without first weighing the political ramifications. Like him or not, President Bush has always done what he thought was best, regardless of what the polls might say about him afterward. Senator McCain has had many unpopular positions on the issues, but has always had the courage to stand upon his convictions whether people agree with him or not. I challenge anyone to describe where Senator Obama stands on any issue that is not fully in toe with the party line. When push comes to shove, there may not be time to consider political ramifications before making a decision. Our President has to be able to act swiftly and intelligently, and can only do so based upon experience and upon wanting to do what’s right, not just what’s right today.

…at whose expense? Standing up for principles & democracies costs $10 billion per month. I really want OURS to be a priority

Establishing our principles and democracy cost our founders their lives. Defend that at any financial cost!

If concerned about our downfall, current trends set by years of GOP war & reck-onomy are not upward towards prosperity

I’m not concerned about financial prosperity. Defending our values has never come cheap, but always been money well spent.

If we allow ourselves to become ruled by money, we are doomed to failure. We cannot fail to achieve our goals because of the price tag. During World War II, the entire country sacrificed for the cause of defeating evil abroad. Food products and petroleum products were rationed. Women went to work in factories while their husbands went to war. Everyone did their part. We once again face a great evil. Regardless of why this war started, or where you think it should be fought, we are at war against an evil force that believes it’s God-given purpose is to eliminate us. What have you sacrificed for your country in support of this cause? Why is it that sixty years after World War II we suddenly don’t have to sacrifice when our nation is at war?

We’ll put all you big spenders on an island off the coast, shoot missiles & yell at Jihaddies. Let us know how that goes

It goes like this: we establish a new great democracy while the one you’re so careless about crumbles.

All the money in the world cannot defeat the determination of the passionate defenders of freedom.

Democracy will survive and thrive where liberty is defended. It will fail when we let our guard down and take our sites off the prize.

Well then. Try it out. I think it’s worth descovering (sic) if your new island gets attacked, or if we fair better by minding our own

See you in the history books, then. Thanks for the interesting chatter. GOODNIGHT TO ALL.

It is at this point that this debate was over for me. It was midnight here in Indiana, and an early morning ahead. Past experience has taught me that people such as petersantilli will go on forever, sounding less coherent and making less sense, just for the sake of the argument. Read on as he proves my point.

People who say that typically have a sub-prime loan, credit card bills, and let other people balance the war check-book

Shall we blame your stupidity & ignorance on failure of education, Patriot Act, or solely on governmental control of our media?

Again, more attacks and insults. I’ll only address the “governmental control of our media” by saying, tune into CNN or MSNBC or CBS or ABC and you’ll see that not only does the government not control our media, but if anything the media controls our government. The mainstream media has overlooked so much real news this election cycle in favor of spinning the latest rumor or hearsay in favor of the candidate(s) that they favor that I don’t think anyone with a working knowledge of the English language can say that the government controls American media.

A quote for the history books “I’m not concerned about financial prosperity.” - Average Joe

It’s voters like @AverageJoe that frighten me & my family

Interesting, to say the least. It’s sad that some people can’t have an informed political debate without resorting to smear tactics, insults, lies, and innuendo. I guess I shouldn’t have expected much more given the situation.

Your comments?

Joe