HOPE ON Part 12: Obama isn’t just liberal–he’s extremely liberal

The State of Ohio Blogger Alliance has undertaken the task of highlighting criticisms of the Obama ticket that the in-the-tank MSM works hard to downplay or outright ignore.  The effort has been titled “Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now” (HOPE ON), and, in all, 13 installments will be rolled out for blog readers to peruse and reflect upon.

Here are my recaps of Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Part 11.

Return of the Conservatives has the scoop on part 12.  Watch the video there or here.  In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal member of the Senate, with a whopping 95.5 rating on the liberal 100-point scale from National Journal, who reveals their rating methodology here.  That’s just one measure.  As pointed out at Return of the Conservatives, there are other measures.  The Citizens Club for Growth rated Obama tied for last place with a zero rating in Obama’s first year in office. Also pointed out at Return of the Conservatives:

He has a 0% rating from the Americans for Tax Reform and a 13% rating from Citizens Against Government Waste. His hatred for the Second Amendment was clear with his support of the DC gun ban, and further it is no surprise that the NRA gives him a F rating, and the Gun Owners of America gives him a 0% rating.

From the Buckeye RINO perspective:

This video and the one for HOPE ON Part 4 are nearly identical in content, so you might want to pull up Part 4 for further commentary.

These liberal scores are just based upon votes.  What isn’t measured are the ideals that Obama has held very close to the vest (HOPE ON Part 6) about where he ultimately wants to lead this country.  Given the smoking gun of his 2001 radio interview, as mentioned in HOPE ON Part 8, that suggests that his liberal leanings equate with those of Bill Ayers (HOPE ON Part 7) except for the violence (Obama denounced the violence carried out and advocated for by Ayers, but never denounced the radical views of Ayers–in fact, as more of the puzzle pieces come together, the ideological portrait of Obama is resembling that of Ayers more and more), which would put Obama to the left of virtually every blogger in Ohio’s political blogosphere, to the left of every other presidential candidate, including Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, and to the left of nearly every popular liberal icon, like Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, and Bill Maher, let alone the other U.S. Senators.

Bob Latta for Ohio’s 5th Congressional District

BobLatta

When it comes to the bailout, Bob Latta gets it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Straight Talk Express visited downtown Sandusky on 10/30

Downtown Sandusky, in Erie County, Ohio, has a quaint little park named Washington Park.

sanduskywashingtonpark2

Washington Street runs through it.

sanduskywashingtonpark

(Many more photos to ogle if you click to see the full story.)

Read the rest of this entry »

HOPE ON Part 11: What would Ronald Reagan do?

The State of Ohio Blogger Alliance has undertaken the task of highlighting criticisms of the Obama ticket that the in-the-tank MSM works hard to downplay or outright ignore.  The effort has been titled “Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now” (HOPE ON), and, in all, 13 installments will be rolled out for blog readers to peruse and reflect upon.

Here are my recaps of Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, and Part 10.

DarkeBlog has the scoop on Part 11.  The video can be accessed there or here.  The transcript of the video is important, so I’m including it with some bold type to add my own emphasis.

Senator McCain, history has shown us your economic plans will work.
When Ronald Reagan took office, the economy was far worse than it is today.
You understand that Reagan’s plan worked. Senator Obama does not.
Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, dividend, and captial gains taxes. Senator Obama will raise them.
Ronald Reagan cut taxes on small businesses. Senator Obama will raise them.
Ronald Reagan cut spending and reduced the size of the federal government. Senator Obama plans to increase spending by nearly a trillion dollars. So who’s right?
During Reagan’s eight years, the Gross Domestic Product nearly doubled. The net worth of a middle class household, again, nearly doubled, and 14 million new jobs were created.
Senator McCain, we are hopeful.
Because your economic policies are the policies of Ronald Reagan.
As a nation in crisis, we’d be fools not to embrace your ideas.
What happens when we pick the alternative? Please America. Let’s never find out.

From the Buckeye RINO Perspective:

I was too young to vote when Ronald Reagan was first elected in 1980.  But I do remember double-digit unemployment in Ohio.  I remember the oil shocks.  I remember double digit inflation.  I remember double digit mortgage rates.  Americans were being held hostage in Iran.  The U.S.S.R. had invaded Afghanistan.

Not only was the United States economy weak, but our foreign enemies also thought we were weak.  Jimmy Carter called for a boycott of the Summer Olympics in 1980.  Jimmy Carter called for a grain embargo on the Soviet Union.  American farmers had to sell their grain at prices that were too low, only to see profiteers in other nations who’d bought our low-priced grain turn around and re-sell the grain to the Soviet Union at prices that were inflated by our embargo.  Middlemen profited greatly thanks to Jimmy Carter.

One of my school teachers, who was a Democrat, had this to say when sizing up the Carter-Reagan presidential race: “I think, if the Soviet Union called up the White House on the hotline to say ‘Surrender or we launch our nuclear missiles in fifteen minutes,’ Jimmy Carter would surrender.  I think if Ronald Reagan answered the phone instead, he’d say ‘You’ll have your nuclear bombs up in fifteen minutes?  We’ll have ours up in ten!'”  I think the so-called “Reagan Democrats” were stirred by the resolve of Ronald Reagan.  I think voters across the spectrum felt he’d fight tooth-and-nail for us, while Carter would wave the white flag.

Looking back, isn’t it almost surreal that our GDP and the average family’s net worth both nearly doubled during the Reagan Administration?  The Iranians promptly returned the hostages.  The Soviet Union tried to get a little toe-hold on the Caribbean island of Grenada, and Reagan promptly invaded it. The old Cold War strategy of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent was replaced by the new strategy of outright victory. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”  The wall came down.  It’s the stuff of legends and fairy tales, and yet it happened.

This video ad points out that John McCain wants to tackle our economic problems the way Ronald Reagan did:  Cut taxes and let business thrive.  On the foreign policy front, all the other candidates, including Barack Obama, remind me of Jimmy Carter.  Only John McCain is resolved to win out against our enemies.

Frankly speaking, I love Ronald Reagan.  Which presidential candidate reminds you more of Ronald Reagan?

The Republican case against Issue 6

As I mentioned in the Democrat case against Issue 6, there are some Republican politicians pushing this ballot issue from the shadows.  Don’t be deceived by announcement that the Ohio Republican Party is officially against Issue 6.  There are a number of decent Republicans within the party, but there are those that have sold their soul as well.  Jill Miller Zimon of WLST outed one of the Republican backers: Jim Trakas.  There are others, I am sure, but they are engaged in a stealth campaign that, according to polls, seems to be working, as the poll numbers I’ve heard show 50% in favor of Issue 6, 41% against Issue 6, and 9% undecided.  The Ohio GOP is officially against Issue 6 largely due to the political clout of U.S. Senator George Voinovich (video link in this blog entry), who has never sold out or caved in on casino issues.

And why does a Republican who stands on a principle rather than takes bribes from a casino owner, like George Voinovich, oppose gambling?  There are many, many reasons, and Jill Miller Zimon, though a Democrat, has compiled many, many reasons that I’m sure Senator Voinovich would agree with.  Perhaps the best way to sum those reasons up is the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

There are tremendous costs associated with gambling.

I’ve already written at length about the opportunity costs of gambling and how it contracts the economy as money is siphoned out of it.  The cure for the souring economy becomes so much more expensive when you’ve got leaks in it.

As JMZ noted in this post, gambling is destructive of self, family, and community.  The cure for self and family is expensive when one considers the lack of mental health parity among health insurance policies, never mind the fact that health coverage is blasted expensive even if there was parity.  The cure for family and community is expensive, as government often feels compelled to institute programs to combat the fallout.  That means tax dollars.  The tax dollar revenues from casinos in no way compensate for families that have been stripped of their resources by gambling and communities of declining property values where gambling has eaten up money that could have been used to keep up with rent, mortgage, utility payments or home improvements.  School districts, like Detroit’s, who get an influx of money from casinos don’t get enough to improve the academic achievements of students who come from homes broken by gambling.  More money isn’t fixing the worsening problem.

So for fiscal conservatives, prevention is key because the cure is unaffordable.

For social conservatives, the damage inflicted upon oneself, one’s family, and the rest of society by gambling away scarce resources is evident.  Unlike the libertarian viewpoint that, in advocating for maximization of individual liberty, only the damage to self is fully recognized, social conservatives are aware that gambling has more victims than just those who chose to gamble.  Curtailing gambling curtails the number of gambling’s victims, whether direct or indirect.  For many social conservatives, religious convictions might also play a role in deciding against gambling.

Then there is the issue of law and order.  Casinos are situated on the borderline between the black market and the above-ground economy.  Transparency may exist in other economic sectors and in government, but casinos are perpetually shrouded in shadow.  Casinos are the perfect venues for laundering money.  Law enforcement officials recognize they just don’t have the tools to unlock the secrets of the illegal activities that take place in casinos.  Intuitively, they may sense that money is being laundered, but there’s little they can do to penetrate the darkness.  The Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations have routinely opposed casino ballot issues, and Issue 6 is not an exception to that rule.  As the push for transparency in government and commerce heightens, the demand for casinos increases, as criminals have fewer and fewer options for laundering their money out of plain sight.  If casinos were illegal everywhere, more criminal activity would be forced out into the open where it could be interdicted more effectively.  The above-ground economy would benefit, too, as the underground economy has less power to erode the above-ground economy.  Combined with greater transparency, a stable environment for economic growth accompanies law and order.

Finally, there is the recognition that casinos do not create wealth.  There is no production of goods or exchange of goods that occurs at a casino.  There is only a redistribution of wealth from the many gamblers to the few casino owners, with the gambler having received no value whatsoever for the money lost.

HOPE ON Part 10: Obama will tax us

The State of Ohio Blogger Alliance has undertaken the task of highlighting criticisms of the Obama ticket that the in-the-tank MSM works hard to downplay or outright ignore.  The effort has been titled “Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now” (HOPE ON), and, in all, 13 installments will be rolled out for blog readers to peruse and reflect upon.

Here are my recaps of Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9.

The Boring Made Dull has the scoop on Part 10.  You can check out the video there or here.  Obama claims there will be those in the middle class who get tax breaks, but he’s never actually voted that way in the U.S. Senate.  Obama talk of federal initiatives and taxes make it sound as if the government creates wealth, but the government doesn’t.  The people create the wealth of the nation, and tax policy must reflect that, but Obama’s principles don’t even acknowledge that.

From the Buckeye RINO standpoint:

John McCain has said that he will not raise taxes because he knows that it would hurt the economy’s recovery hopes.  I have not dwelt too much the tax proposals of the presidential candidates, as I’m sure you’ve heard the talking points many times over.  I have, however, said a few things about taxes relative to ethically challenged sub-prime lenders playing shell games in order to avoid paying taxes.  I’ve also made some down-ticket endorsements based partly upon candidate platforms relating to taxes, like Nick Brusky for Lorain County Commissioner, Larry Silcox for Huron County Commissioner, Dave Potter for Congress from Ohio’s 13th, and Jeff Wagner for state rep from the Ohio House 81st District.  I’ve also noted that the Democrat machine in Lorain County uses some strong-arm tactics to intimidate residents from trying to interfere with hiking taxes.

Carnival of Ohio Politics #140 posted

It’s getting close to crunch time, and that’s what’s reflected in the blog entries gathered from all over Ohio about politics.  Editor Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks has unveiled the 140th installment of the Carnival of Ohio Politics.  The next edition is likely to be posted AFTER election day.  Check it out.