I've got many thoughts regarding the debate tonight with John McCain and Barack Obama, but I'll touch on a few for the time being...

First, as the graphic shows, McCain overwhelmingly won according to the poll taken by Drudge immediately after the debate.

Both campaigns are going to spin it so they feel they've won, but the poll shows otherwise. Drudge is as independent as they come, so this poll isn't skewed by partisan readers.

I watched the full debate on CNN HD and will cover that in more depth tomorrow. What I immediately noticed during this debate was apparantely not only picked up by me. Throughout the debate, Barack Obama made the statement You're right John or something similar. From what I understand, this has already been picked up and turned into a commercial from the McCain campaign...talk about speed! I took notes during the debate and planned on doing one myself, but of course there's no need now...

It will be interesting to see how the media spins the debate. While I feel McCain performed better, I also understand that this debate was essentially a wash, and will not be a game-changer this election. Tomorrow, I'll have a more detailed analysis of the debate, along with audio analysis. For now however, and you won't find this anywhere else - Here is full, unedited audio of the debate, as I captured during the debate. Please note, the audio is a very large file at just under 55mb for the full debate, so it may take some time to load on slower connections.

Tonight, the debate will go on in Oxford, Mississippi. The economy is on the top of the list of issues for all Americans. Unfortunately, tonights topic is that of foreign policy. While, many accuse McCain of a political stunt, it was anything but that - rather, it was apparent political suicide. John McCain will either be responsible for destroying "the bailout that would save America" or for causing "the largest spending bill in American history" depending on what happens with the bailout.

Here's my thoughts on the bailout - Uggggggggggg. Yes, I said uggggggggggg. The bailout is flawed on many levels, with no real positive outcome. We'll either see a larger government entity with a greater national debt, or a collapse of our economic system - neither which is helpful to the country, either in short or long-term.

The proposed bailout package can be compared to cancer treatment. The economy has cancer. The bailout is the "cure" in the form of chemotherapy or radiation. Unfortunately, there is a very fine line to saving the economy. If we do nothing, the economy dies of cancer. However, if too much is done, we are poisoned by the cure of too much chemotherapy and radiation. From an economic standpoint, too much done via the government is what caused the Great Depression to last for so long. The policies of Roosevelt didn't stop the Depression as many like to think, but rather slowed down the recovery and only got us out of it by increased production from entering World War II.

There should be no question on the theme of tonight's debate. Detailed planning of how to proceed with this debate means nothing when the fate of our country is at stake. Foreign Policy is the strong point of John McCain without a doubt, and by offering to change the topic to one where Obama appears stronger - the Economy - it is an option Obama could not refuse. However, the thought from the Obama camp is that they want to keep the current debate schedule and talk about the economy in the final debate, to maintain any perceived momentum gain from it throughout the final stretch run.

In any event, I urge all to tune into the debate, and with an open mind. Yes, the independents and undecideds are the only ones who will likely be influenced by the debates, but those of us on both sides should watch/listen to the debate with an open mind, and carefully decide who should be the leader of our country for the next 4 years. The best recommendation is to bypass the commentary by pundits on the networks and watch a direct feed or one with no commentary, such as C-Span or XM's POTUS '08. Too many citizens are influenced by the pundits analysis and the standard talking points, without being able to make an educated decision on their own.

I'll be recording the direct audio feed and *fingers crossed* will be able to have it, along with my analysis on here as soon as possible.

If you've been here before, you can probably tell I've updated the site. Other improvements will be forthcoming over the near future to hopefully have all functionality equal to that of the old site. All posts were copied over, but unfortunately comments were unable to transfer. Please vote and let me know what you think of the new layout!

Thanks,

Anthony

Mr. Gaffe-o-matic himself, Joe Biden, had some words of wisdom for all of us today:

"Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence, is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this."

Biden then went on to say the following:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened"

Oops...

Here's the problem Joe - Roosevelt wasn't President when the stock market crashed in 1929 - Herbert Hoover was. However, he didn't specifically refer to the President in the quote, so that's simply a technicality. Except for a couple things - First, Roosevelt was never on television in 1929. The television wasn't available until the 1930s in the United States.

Joe Biden - instilling confidence and demonstrating he knows what he is talking about since 1942.

With all the talk about candidates' health in this election, why isn't Joe Biden being mentioned at all? John McCain is old, and questions about his health are valid, as long as they are legitimate, and not intended solely to hurt his campaign to advance one's own political purposes. The same questions were asked about Dick Cheney with his myriad of heart problems before the last two elections. Again, all are very fair if asked in the correct manner.

The question regarding McCain are being brought up as a What If? scenario due to the experience of Sarah Palin and her ability to lead the country. The opposition refers to the excellent health of Senator Obama, and the experience of Senator Biden, if something were to happen, due to his numerous experience in Washington over the years.

Here's where the argument falls apart though - Any of us can die at any moment. While the prospect of John McCain's age makes that more probable, there's nothing that says he won't live for many more years, like that of his (still living) ninety-six year old mother. Opponents will point out that McCain's father only lived to the age of seventy. While true, advances in modern technology have vastly increased our lifespans, making eighty seem much more attainable. Furthermore, while Presidents age much quicker than normal, there have been many instances of Presidents living past ninety years old, with Ronald Reagan being the most recent example. He was also older than McCain when elected for his second term, for what it's worth.

In addition, Joe Biden isn't that much younger than John McCain. McCain has previously battled (and overcome) skin cancer. Biden has previously battled (and overcome) a brain aneurysm - on two separate occasions. In fact, Biden's aneurysms were simply caught by chance, due to experienced neck pain.

If John McCain is a risk to be President due to his age, then Joe Biden is a risk to be Vice-President due to his health issues over the years. Voting for another candidate based on health is silly - none of us can predict the future. If the candidate that agrees with you the most has something happen to them, the replacement candidate will most likely parrot their ideology somewhat and will select a replacement Vice President that will do the same. Trying to use age or health as an issue is just another way to supress the vote.

While I typically don't use the Washington Times as a source, the statistics in today's article are just that - statistics.

 

As we draw closer to the election, we are presented with arguments with both campaigns claiming how they will unite the country. The Obama camp has been using the slogans of hope, change and "change we can believe in." The McCain camp, on the other hand, has been running on the change of being Mavericks.

 

This is now a change election, but the type of change America is looking for is important. The arguments against each are that Obama's change would not necessarily be for the better, and that McCain's change isn't really change, but more of the same.

 

While political ads and rhetoric from candidates and surrogates on the campaign trail tend to be...misleading...the votes are not. By comparing apples to apples - McCain's tenure in the Senate during the same period of Obama, we can see the willingness to work with the other side:

Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

 

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.

 

Finally, a stark difference between the two candidates is seen not only on who they work with, but how often they go against the party standard:

Over his Senate career, Mr. McCain has voted with the majority of Senate Republicans about 85 percent of the time, while in his three years in the Senate Mr. Obama has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.

While neither candidate is completely independent - we all lean a certain way on issues - Senator McCain has proven to not only work with Democrats more often, but to also go against the party line more frequently as well. Of course, many with a vested interest will find any way to equate John McCain with George Bush no matter what the facts say.

Another Monday, and another round of Electoral predictions...

I've added in a few swing states instead of rolling the dice this week. Last week, I had the states as 274-264 in favor of the GOP. This week, I've made a few changes, specifically with the addition of the aforementioned swing states. The swing states are as follows: Nevada, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Each of these could go either way, but the current momentum is in John McCain's favor.

So there isn't much change, but the electoral map is a dead heat, even with the swing states, with the GOP holding a 227-226 advantage. This shows that if any state is flipped, it will change the outcome of the election. Of course, should the votes be a tie at 269-269 - which is a distinct possibility, it would be an Obama victory, due to the tie-breaker being controlled by the Democrats in Congress. There could also be another piece of drama, if McCain wins the popular vote, and Obama the Electoral, as has also been predicted. Should this happen, will the same "selected, not elected" crowd be up in arms? Probably not...

As I was driving home from work today, my wife asked me what gas prices were. My response was $3.89 for unleaded, as was the price around the Detroit area where I was driving. She then informed me that gas in Jackson, MI was between $5-6 per gallon, and that friends from the area were recommending we gas up before prices skyrocket. They didn't give a reason why, but one can only assume it was due to Hurricane Ike heading towards Houston, and thirty-percent of America's refineries in the gulf coast region.

This phoenonenon however was localized to Jackson, MI. Why - I've got no idea. Not really the place to be worried about having a hurricane hit. Nonetheless, the Jackson Citizen Patriot released a story this afternoon regarding it.

Here's where it gets interesting however:

Tom DuBois Jr. raced time and dozen of other drivers Friday to fill up for $4 a gallon.

"People are fighting, screaming, cussing, driving between gas pump islands," DuBois observed in his 15 minutes of waiting in line at the Marathon on 4201 S. Jackson St. "I call this Hurricane Bush."

And yes, with all disrespect intended for both the Cit-Pat and Mr. DuBois, George Bush hates stupid people. A useless reason for gas prices to go up on rumors, and an even more useless reason for an anti-Bush quote to appear.

I've always liked Charles Krauthammer. His pieces are some of the most elegantly written articles out there, and always logical and to the point. Tomorrow's opinion piece he wrote for the Washington Post is no different.

The main focus on the article is Charlie Gibson question to Sarah Palin regarding the "Bush Doctrine" and if she agrees with it:

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Then with a stroke of genius, he made Charlie Gibson his you know what:

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Nothing like being told you've misinterpreted something from the person responsible for inventing it...

As Americans, today is not a day to be bickering about politics. It was seven years ago when America was attacked by terrorists. All of us know what we were doing that day when it happened. I was a freshman in college, in chemistry class when I found out. Immediately afterwards, with our campus being completely wireless even in 2001, we all jumped online to find out more information. I vividly recall Fox News, CNN and other news sites being so jammed that I was unable to get online. In addition our school was cancelled because, at the time, the area the school is located in was considered a high risk for attack, due to many of the large corporate headquarters nearby, the majority of which, based in Detroit, were automotive.

We are all Americans first, and political ideologues second. Let's reflect on what brought us together as a country and hold back on attacks for at least one day. Anyone, right or left, who participates in any attacks or jabs at the other side will have lost a major deal of respect.