lhpblog.com Rotating Header Image

October, 2008:

Obama friendly choice for unions

There’s been lots of talk about Obama doing nothing much to move any major initiatives during his tenure as a senator. A democratic house, senate, and Presidency will change the laws that are approved. Before you vote Obama, consider the implications.

Obama has been quiet about the source of his campaign funding. I don’t know anything much about that, other than reportedly he has taken double and triple the donations as McCain from Wall Street businesses. I would expect the same of unions, which traditionally back any candidate that supports their initiatives. But are their goals the best for our country? Read on.

Here’s an important message from my good friend Barb:
“This is exactly what brought down the largest corporations in America – GM, Chrysler, Eastern Airlines, and have made American goods too expensive to compete in a global economy. And this liberal wants to give them a much larger hold on the country, ensuring that we will never compete in a global economy. 

These O followers must be unbelievably stupid to not see how that is going to cost hundreds of thousand of jobs, and close businesses across the country. If they can’t see the reason for the layoff now, I guess they will just have to experience it for themselves. But it is doubtful that the “factory mentality” worker will really see the reason for the downfall of these businesses – way to high labor costs crippling any competitive edge that the business might create.

We will just all have to own our own businesses, with no employees.

Attached is a summary (an article from yesterday’s WSJ) of what will happen when the Socialists gets into power. Spread the word!”

wall street journal obama and labor unions

compare Obama and McCain health care plans

This is a great way to
compare Obama and McCain health care plans with easy side by side comparison.

Here’s a few of my own notes on health care in response to some of Obama’s statements:
Everyone in America already has access to health care. It’s a terrible solution, but anyone can go to ER and get care whether they have money or not. So let’s take out of the equation that someone cannot get access to any health care.

In Florida we have a program called Florida KidCare. Florida KidCare is the state’s children’s health insurance program for uninsured children under age 19. No child needs to be without health care if their family can’t afford. Again, not the greatest solution, but I wouldn’t expect any national health plan to be better than this either.

Obama wants to invest $50 billion toward adoption of electronic medical records and other HIT. Given the governments track record on protecting our data, and purchasing of ‘global’ software solutions, I want no part in investing in government solution. The private sector is much more likely to do this cheaper, get the health care industry to help pay for it, and get the project done faster.

Obama would require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year. The businesses that can afford this generally pay their employees already, whether it’s stated on the books or not. I know this because I’ve benefited from it. The rule book said one thing, but when it came down to it, if the company was doing well, the boss paid you if you were sick, whether you had sick days coming or not. Many small businesses give one week paid vacation to new hires. This more than doubles that. Believe me, I feel for those who get sick and need the money. But the burden on businesses is too great to demand it.

Charles Krauthammer: Why I’m voting for McCain

Charles Krauthammer: Why I’m voting for McCain

12:00 PM CDT on Friday, October 24, 2008

Contrarian that I am, I’m voting for John McCain. I’m not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it’s over before it’s over. I’m talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they’re left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe ˆ neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) ˆ yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The “erratic” temperament issue, for example. As if Mr. McCain’s risky and unsuccessful ˆ but in no way irrational ˆ attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders him unfit for office. This man has demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and he has steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

Nor will I countenance the “dirty campaign” pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Mr. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating Mr. McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed Mr. McCain supports “cutting Social Security benefits in half.” And for months, Democrats insisted that Mr. McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

Mr. McCain’s critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What’s astonishing is that Mr. Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, Mr. McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Mr. Obama’s most egregious association ˆ with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for Mr. McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who’s been cramming on these issues for the last year, who’s never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of “a world that stands as one”), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as “the tragedy of 9/11,” a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the U.S. Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Charles Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist.