When's it gonna end?

Dear voters,

OK, so consider this my closing argument. This election has left me a bit tired and disheartened, but whatever the outcome is going to be, let's just rip off the band aid and get it over with.

I know that many have already voted, but I am going to recap here my top 5 reasons for voting for McCain. (in no particular order, except the first...)


#1--Pro life stance. I understand that using a "litmus test" for candidates is not always practical. But it is very important. As a woman and as a Christian this one of my core stances. But strip away these "labels" and I have so many other reasons for being pro-life. This is very important to me, so I had to get this out up front. I understand, however, that others have felt put into a situation where they have to go against long held views on this issue due to other issues taking precedence.

#2--Goals for energy Independence. John McCain has laid out a plan for this on his site. Read all about it. He is for alternative fuels, greater domestic production, development of alternate methods of transportation, etc. I think he has good plans in this area.

#3--Health care plan. McCain's health care plan makes more sense to me, when comparing the choices. It puts power and responsibility in the hands of the people of this country. I feel that the bureaucracy of a more nationalized, socialized system will become a huge, money eating behemoth leaving your every day person with less quality care. As stated by a doctor interviewed on the radio, better care that costs less is a great idea, but it is just not as easy as the politicians make it sound. I think letting the people choose is the best plan, and a tax credit is a great way to let people have more money to do so. BUT, with the current financial issues, I am doubtful that there will be money to give people this kind of tax break. But that goes for both candidates...

#4--Cutting spending. McCain stressed this a lot. But will it happen? He says it will, with a reduction in ear marks. McCain's record shows his desire for projects to be paid for and to end earmarks (he does not use them himself), so I believe he will truly work for this.

#5--John McCain's record. I think that the media has forgotten that up until winning the nomination for being the Republican candidate, John McCain really was a maverick to many republicans. He worked in a bipartisan way with others in the Senate, went against his party frequently, fought for what he thought was right regardless of what others said, and has a record of strength in the Senate. His votes back up what he says. Obama has a record of running for president, with the occasional partisan vote and vote of "present". I feel more comfortable with McCain's record of service.

I like this picture of John with his dog, but my favorite picture of McCain is of him before the nomination carrying his own bag and flying southwest I think. He ran in this race because he wanted to bring change, bipartisanship, and make a difference. I feel that this has gotten lost in these last days. This is an unfortunate aspect of "running for president". But I hope he has the chance to get into office and go back to being himself, making a positive difference in the history of our country.

My biggest request to both candidates, no matter who is in office, is please, let's balance the budget. Don't continue to spout the "chicken is every pot" mantra. Let's start saying, "you know what, it will be tough, but we can't spend more than we take in. So services will be cut and we will not being doing as much as before, but we will balance our budget for our financial security." There should be focus on using less credit (on all levels from personal to governmental) and being more disciplined in the use of out money. That is my wish, at least.

So in closing, VOTE JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!

And if you are also tired of all this politics, watch my favorite video found in my research during the campaign season. I watch it every now and again for a good laugh.






Special thanks to BRD for allowing me the freedom to post and engage in election discussion on this site. I am truly honored. But I am sure all of BRD's regular readers will be glad to go back to her informative commentary, erudite literary reviews, and or course entertaining flix of the Zorro family and Neb and Solomon!

Love you BRD!

Thanks,

CaDh 8

Iraq and other matters...OR What a tangled web

Dear President Bush,

You have been in a painful slide lately I think. As one of your faithful, if somtimes confused, supporters, it has frankly been hard to watch. I want to believe you had an honorable heart in all this mess, but often I am unsure. I am here to engage the topic of Iraq today, and as I researched and thought about this subject, I just kept coming back to you.

This picture was taken this week, as you talked to us about the latest blow to hit your presidency, the impending collapse of the financial market. You frankly looked beaten. I heard the quacking of a lame duck calling the two Ganders to waddle their way to Washington to assist in the decision that would really affect their administration more than yours.

It made me think back to the days not so long ago when you were younger, determined, and riding a wave of public support. You had comforted us after the terrible day of 9/11, you had taken a posse and sent them to Afganistan to string up the outlaw who did it, and you were ready to show that you were not only a reactive guy, but proactive as well. There would be no second 9/11 on your watch. Hussein would be the next to go. I wonder if you regret the speech below now, especially the prophetic lines that those of us who were listening did not expect to be as true as they turned out to be.

There are now few that don't hate you for this decision. Did you know that the weapons of Mass Destruction would never quite show up? Was it really all about oil? Or was it about the human rights violations against millions in Iraq? I guess we will never know. Right or wrong, you have suffered. And maybe I am naive to still hope that your intentions were good. But even corruption has been corrupted now, with the evilest standing up and calling themselves the best, so how are we on "main street" to know.

So now, we have two men with plans for what to do next. I was struck by something McCain said in the debate this past week. Obama was talking about why this war was the wrong war at the wrong time. But now that is a mute point. We are here and it is now and there is no going back. So the question is what do we do now.

See minute #2 for the quote. Watch the whole video for McCain's side of the debate on Iraq. I wish it had both sides of the debate, but this is what I found.

The fact of the matter is, we cannot "lose" in Iraq. Remember how that went with Vietnam? But how do you define "winning" when you are fighting against guerilla warfare? When the enemy army has a global pool to draw from? And when the enemy does not value the lives of its own members? In fact, the enemy blends with the civilian population one day and blows them up the next. Lets just say it gets confusing.

So, to the point. What does John McCain recommend? On his site he says he "believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred." OK, what else...

"The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home." A democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors? I disagree with that. Its neighbors should be at risk of catching the same disease...democracy and freedom. Those terrorists take refuge with Iraq's neighbors...But Iraq should be able to safe guard themselves, I agree.

McCain calls for 1. Support of the successful counterinsurgency strategy (see BRD's discussion of the Patreaus doctrine). 2. Push for Political reconciliation and good government, 3. Get Iraq's economy back on its feet, 4. Call for International pressure on Syria and Iran, 5. Level with the American people about what is going on in Iraq

He closes his Iraq info with this: “I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.”

I fear that I still agree with your administration, Mr. Bush, and with John McCain. I think you both sort of agree, although all this politics has addled my brain a bit. I just know that simply promising to bring troops home does not a successful strategy make. We are where we are, and we must, slowly but surely, strengthen Iraq and prepare to leave. There will be risks, there are always risks, but we must allow this butterfly, which we removed from its cocoon a bit before it was ready, to spread and strengthen its wings. And then when it can fly, we must let it.

AND THEN>>> We must decide what we will do with evil in this world, both the evil that threatens us and the evil that does not. What about the Darfurs? What about the Irans? There are probably 10 more places we could go to war at for all the same reasons that you took us to war in Iraq. So what kind of possible consequences will we allow to drive us to that point again? It is something that American's must grapple with. We must also grapple with where in the world we will spend our money, especially now. 2 Billion to Georgia to support democracy...how many billions to the world in general to cut poverty in half by 2015?

"The world has changed, I can feel it in the water, I can feel it in the earth". America must change with it, and we must decide who we are going to be globally... "freedom bully", nuclear enforcer, savior, uncle money bags, trouble maker, scape goat...what?

But I digress and fall into so many other topics. One last thing I want to say though, is that I am glad for what you have done in Africa. I wish more people knew about this. With all the horrible things going on in Iraq, there have been so many good things in Africa. But no one wants to report the good things...the people living better, surviving longer with AIDS, prevention of the spread of AIDS, etc. Thank you for doing this.

So enjoy your last few months in the White House, and I truly hope you can enjoy retirement on the ranch. It will be here very soon.

Your friend and critic,

CaDh 8

p.s. Oh, yeah, And Bush, I did not get to talk about that unbalanced budget, but it is one of my major gripes with you. If America had had to feel this war due to spending cuts to make war funding possible, I think the war would have been handled very differently from the beginning. But maybe that is a topic for next time...

Points, Principles, and Financial plans

So we have been hearing from the candidates of late. Partisanship politics paired with bi-partisan statements while a national game of chicken ensues. I was frankly disappointed at the "joint statement" just released, as I felt like it was mostly fluff. I thought they were going to tell us something. But it was just "Kum-by-ah". I don't think Kumbyah will get us out of this one.

Both McCain and Obama took time out of the Clinton Global Initiative to lay out some of their "real" plans.

McCain had 5 points regarding the bail out plan. He thinks these are requirements for any plan that is put in place. Washington post online provided this recap:
"As he has said before, McCain said five principles must be included: greater accountability and independent oversight; a path for taxpayers to recoup the money; transparency in decisions on which companies to help; a cap on the executive pay of those companies that take part and no earmarks in the plan for any specific businesses." and "McCain said that a second economic stimulus package should not be attached to the legislation."

Obama kept his points to 4, but the Washington post was a bit more free with their word count and line space when outlining his ideas:
"Obama's proposed additions include:
--A ban on generous payouts for "irresponsible CEOs on Wall Street." Obama warned: "There has been talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forgo multimillion-dollar salaries. I cannot imagine a position more selfish and greedy at a time of national crisis. And I would like to speak directly to those CEOs right now: Do not make that mistake."
--Replacing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's absolute authority over the bailout's execution with a bipartisan independent board. Obama noted that Paulson signaled during testimony this morning that he may be open to the broadening idea.
--An investor stake for taxpayers. "The American people should share in the upside as Wall Street recovers," Obama said, adding, "There are different ways to accomplish this."
--Assistance for people who are in danger of foreclosure. He outlined several possible ways to provide aid, including giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly, instead of the mortgage-backed securities that have cause the banking woes.
He also called for a stimulus package, although he added that it shouldn't be attached to the bailout bill. "

So there are some definite similarities here. Both want to limit CEO profits, independant or bipartisan oversight, and a way for the taxpayers to recover the money and/or make profits based on what happens with the bailed out companies. I think most can agree on these points. They are fairly good.
But I think there is a giant hole in the points of both men. I mean, what about this 700+ billion dollars? None of these points really directly address that part. Why are we putting that money up? What are we getting for that money? Would mortgage insurance, similar to FHA, do a better job at protecting the market while keeping companies solvant? Are there real homes backing up the 700+ billion, or just "toxic paper"? And how will this toxic paper turn to, well, for lack of a better analogy, green, acid free, recyclable paper?

And what about the whole stimulus package that both men discuss? Didn't we just try that in the fall. Sure it was great to get $1200 in the mail, but I feel like somehow now is not the time.

So I am still confused. But at least we can see that our candidates do agree on a few things. I hope that they can help out up there is Washington. I think I may have a party to celebrate that tomorrow night, if they meet their deadline, regardless of whether the debates are on or off.

You are all invited. We will be having bean soup. No time like the present to start saving money.

CaDh 8

"Every patient is a doctor after his cure" and other thoughts on healthcare

Dear John, Barak, Sarah, and Joe,

Yes, it is true. I know how to reduce all of our chance of dying...well at least temporarily. Maintaining a healthy weight (which for most of us means losing a pound or two) and not smoking. And guess what, this also solves some of our health care needs, as it will decrease rates of other health problems as well. I guess this would increase costs some though, as people would need care for longer lives, but those longer lives would be lived healthier.

OK, so I know I did not just solve all of America's health care issues with that one little statement. But here is a comment that Sarah Palin made in 2008:

"Our choices often lead to heart disease, diabetes, underage drinking, drugs, violence, and abuse. Soaring health and public safety costs are sometimes unfairly passed on to others. But more importantly, by ignoring or accepting selfish choices that cause the abuse, children, families and entire communities are destroyed. Government cannot cure all ills. And don't assume more laws foisted on Alaskans are the only answer--most "bad activity" is already illegal. We have got to make wise, healthy personal choices, including choosing not to ignore child abuse. I'm counting on families, communities and faith-based groups to step up, together, to help passionately here, too."
Source: State of the State Address to the 25th Alaska Legislature Jan 15, 2008

I think that this comment captures two things. One is that our outcomes are based on the choices we make. This is true on several levels. One point is that our health on a personal level is dependant on our own choices. We choose to eat well or not, to exercise or not, to smoke or not. Are some of these choices very hard? Of course. Are there some things we are powerless to control. Yes to that too. And we must choose not to ignore the things we can change.

This goes for spending as well. Both personal and national.

Personally we must choose to prioritize health care. It is not a travesty that at times we would choose not to get medical care because of the cost. I personally have made this choice over the past year, since I have chosen a high deductible with low coverage for myself. So I only go to the doctor when I NEED to. I am not afraid to go, though, because I use the money I save on premiums to build my savings for times of need. But I know that health care must come before cable and eating out and other "wants". It is a need.

Nationally we also must consider this debate. What do we want as a nation, what does it cost, and what will we give up in order to get it. Oh yeah, and who will pay. Here is an interesting video...it is a bit long, but talks about the limits to our budget and what we can spend on all government programs. This candidate will take your vote, I am sure, if you don't like either of the current front runners.

But the thing is, no one wants to cut spending. Everyone seems to say "Gimme Gimme". And there are lots of arguments why we should give people more in the way of health care. But I fear out attempts to 'give' some people more will eventually lead to much less for all. And when we get more from the government we become slave to them. When they control our most important needs, we become beholden to them. So I fear to give them control over my health care. They have already messed up so many things.

Well, in the interest of information, I am just going to link to John McCain's website for his planks on Health care. There was just too much to summarize here. But with his plan, designed to give power to the people and tax breaks so we can buy our own health care. The thing is, this still means there will be less money to the government, so they will have to fix their spending problem. Obama wants the government to provide more health care, so costs will go up and either taxes must match or spending must go down. Either way, we as a nation must fix our spending problem and make good choices...

But so must individuals. We must get off credit cards, give up goodies, and prioritize our spending. And guess what...if we did this we may not even need the governments help. Just think about that one. You can solve your own problems!! Be empowered.

We all know we need an affordable, sensible way for all people to get health care. And the government does need to be involved. But so do we. The government must fight corruption and help those who have no other options. Both candidates say they will do that, and even after some research I still wonder how.

And we must open our eyes to those around us. Don't expect the government to take care of YOUR neighbor when you can do it much better.

And if you don't like this plan, you may like the Dunlap-Brawls health care plan. I warn you, there are some crude spots, but nothing too over the line. (And yes, this is facetious).





Hope these thoughts add to the debate. This is a complex problem and I know I did not wade to deep, but I think the spending issue is the lead in issue to the HOW of the healthcare debate.

CaDh 8