What Does It Mean to Be "Poor" or "Broke?"

In the past week, this discussion has come up over and over.  Spurred on by the dueling poverty stories of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (in the last 15 years, not their childhood), many are taking a closer look at what people mean when they say "poor" or "broke."

In a related and strange statement, the former president's daughter blissfully confessed that she cared little for money.  Of course Chelsea Clinton makes $600,000 per year doing half the work of unpaid or low paid interns.  One does not need to care for money when the nest is permanently and opulently feathered.

Even the federal student loan people got in trouble for a tweet that seemed to minimize poverty. But what is it?

The federal government has a one size fits all measure of poverty.  It considers a family of four impoverished if it makes a little over $23,000 per year or less in every state outside of Alaska and Hawaii.  Cost of living, however, varies widely.  Earnings of $14,000 in West Virginia's most affluent area, Berkeley County, equals nearly $23,000 in Hartford, Connecticut, according to an online CNN Money cost of living adjuster.  Simply put, a dollar goes much farther in West Virginia than in Connecticut for a variety of reasons.

This shows that one cannot put a simple number on poverty, but doesn't explain what poverty actually is, or feels like.

Hillary Clinton described what many Americans occasionally experience regardless of income.  Her family's lifestyle ran their finances briefly into debt.  On one hand, they struggled with mortgages, tuition, and other financial commitments.  Fair enough, until you hear that these were multiple mortgages on multiple mansions.  They did not owe tuition to local state college, but to one of the most costly educational institutions in the world.

Paying bills when revenue dips causes stress and anxiety.  Having to sell a house to pay for bills could cause social embarrassment in their set.  The public, however, rightfully laughed at the Clintons' protestations of poverty.

The Census Bureau reported a few years ago that 30 million, or just under 10 percent, of Americans live in poverty.  They base this on income statistics instead of investigating actual conditions.  If being poor is defined as simply not making a lot of money, then the case gets rested.  Americans, however, assign a more stringent definition to the term poverty.

To most, poverty means real deprivation.  Does a family lack shelter?  Can they not pay for basic utilities? Do they not eat properly because of a lack of resources?  In most cases, the family may not be financially comfortable or secure, but they do eat consistently, they do have shelter, and they not only pay for utilities, but also vehicles (plural), cell phones,  and cable or satellite TV.

Submitted for your approval: if one regularly pays for satellite TV, alcohol, cigarettes, internet, and/or cell phones, one may not call oneself "poor."  If a family is starving and has all these things, it is not poor, but in sore need of re prioritizing.

Some institutions have a vested interest in inflating the poverty number.  More poverty means more money for the poor but also, more importantly, for bureaucrats and non profits that supposedly handle programs to help them. Examining true poverty does not help them expand their agencies, much less solve the real problems.

The more time spent on servicing the financially insecure as if they were poor, the more likely that the truly poor will escape notice.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton's foray into the verbal forest (and we should not forget that Bill actually did know real poverty as a child) is great for poking fun.  It should, however, lead the country to discuss what poverty really is and examine the policies intended to address it.

Those Who Will Not Learn From History . . .

Consider the scenario.  A Great Power who has dominated world affairs is in relative decline.  Production and wealth are expanding at much slower rates than other rising nations.  Some of those nations feel their own expanding strength; they aspire to find a "place in the sun."  So they try to carve out larger spheres of influence, challenge weaker partners of the dominant power, issue bellicose statements where diplomacy would work better.

A follower of current affairs will immediately recognize this as a description of China's effort to evolve from a regional into a world power.  Students of history will recognize the German Empire under the Kaiser.  His personal ambitions and insecurities vis-a-vis his British royal family relatives fused with the rising nationalism of the age.  The Kaiser was no evil nihilist like Hitler, but by following his own logical path he helped bring on a war that revolutionized Europe and destroyed his family's position.  Both are right.  The behavior of 21st century China mimics that of the Germans from exactly a century ago.  And one need not be an expert to know how that turned out.

At this moment, Vice President Biden is in the Far East.  He first visited Japan and is now in China. Biden's immediate goal is to personally reaffirm the United States' inflexibility on the issue of China's self-declared air defense zone.  In a not so subtle move last week, the U. S. Air Force flew several gigantic and loud B 52 strategic bombers over the defense zone.  China scrambled fighters, but offered no additional aggressive moves.  Xinhua News published the statement that "several combat aircraft were scrambled to verify the identities" of the US and Japanese aircraft.

Biden yesterday issued a special challenge to young Chinese to "challenge the government" to force change in a system they oppose.  He reminded the students applying for visas that in America, opposing the system is admired.

China proclaimed the air defense zone over a broad swath of the South China Sea that happens to include islands governed by Japan.  It also mostly covers international waters.  Most likely they announced it as a test of Obama's resolve.  Fortunately, Obama did strongly defend American and Japanese rights in the region.  But this is the latest in a long series of provocations.  China has forcefully argued claims against Vietnamese and Filipino territory and even claimed suzerainty over thousands of shipwreck sites.

A hundred years ago the Kaiser provoked two near war crises over Morocco, his navy shelled Venezuelan barrier islands, among other belligerent bullying actions.  His government believed that a hyper-aggressive stance everywhere from the Sahara to Samoa would win Germany respect in the world, especially from Britain.  This reversed the balancing act of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the late 1800s. He sought to minimize risky conflicts while cultivating good personal relations with American leaders like Ulysses S. Grant.
The United States faces some of the same concerns as Britain a century ago.  Both the current US and the former British Empire had retooled their militaries to project power against disorganized and mostly non national opposition.  Both nations retained the means to project power (Royal Navy, US Air Force and Navy), but the armies emphasized small war concepts. This meant smaller forces relying on high levels of skill, technology, and experience.  The armies were also smaller in terms of ratio to population than potential adversaries.

Britain's pre-World War I army was annihilated within 18 months of the beginning of World War I.  It simply could not handle mass conventional warfare. Our current military does not have the resources to be ready for both a mass conventional and unconventional war at the same time.  Perhaps if less went to bureaucrats and more to actual fighting preparedness, this could be achieved.  The US, however, has often started major wars in a near skeleton state, ramping up to full mobilization fairly quickly.  Then again, it has never faced an adversary with the population and territorial size of China.

China is likely not determined to start a war.  This would cut it off from its largest market and automatically void America's massive debt.  The German Empire likewise did not want a continental war as it entered 1914.  Things can happen and events can move quickly, however.

If China, like 1941 Japan, saw war with the United States as inevitable, the time to strike would be 2015.  Obama has more chance of seeing a fully Republican Congress than one that stands behind him.  Striking before the 2014 election could give Obama an outside shot at a Democratic Congress.  He certainly would not hesitate to use a war as an excuse to push for one.

In 2015, the full effects of Obamacare will put the nation in economic and social turmoil.  Despite Obama's show of resolve over the defense zone, he remains a weak president with little political backing or ability.  Since a war would almost certainly result in a Republican hawk (Chris Christie comes to mind) winning the presidency in 2016, a China determined to strike would want as much lame duck Obama as they could get.

China has expanded their blue water naval capabilities, collected a number of bases far from their homeland, and has carefully built up a conventional first strike capability.

Where are some of the potential starting points?

1.)  Korea

World War I did not start because Germany attacked France and Britain.  Germany's ally Austria-Hungary suffered a terror attack encouraged by Russia's ally Serbia.  A long standing regional grievance flared into a European, then a World War.  How committed would China be in backing a foolish and unapproved move by North Korea. This state is less an obedient client of China and more of the obnoxious loud cousin.

2.)  Direct Strike on US and/or Japanese regional military assets

Chinese anti ship missiles are built to sink ships in one shot.  That being said, these missiles are crafted by the same country that has an epidemic of poorly built buildings falling over on their sides.  They should be feared, but they likely will have a low success rate.  But they are first strike weapons, make no mistake.

Because of the close alliance and Japan's post World War II constitution, an attack on Japan is tantamount to an attack on the United States itself.  But China might realistically question Obama's willingness to fully commit to a war to protect Japan.

3.)  India

The two countries have fought over a few barren strips of territory in the past.  India also has natural sympathy for the Tibetan Buddhists who continually oppose Chinese rule.  The recent pact could satisfy both sides or be a temporary fix.  Both are nuclear powers and China gets along better with Indian rival Pakistan.

4.)  Vietnam

Border disputes over islands, just like with Japan and the Philippines.  The difference is that China once ruled Vietnam as a vassal.  Vietnam never forgot and still regards China with suspicion.  In a post Cold War world, the United States actually has a better chance at good relations with Vietnam than China.

This is not to say that war will happen, or that it is even likely.  Then again, a far East conflagration is also firmly within the realm of possibility.

5.)  Russia (highly unlikely in short term)

Russia and China have grown closer in this century, focusing on their mutual distrust of American influence.  Territorial issues still divide them.  The Maritime Province, or Primorskya Oblast, was once Chinese territory seized under the Czars. It contains the major Russian port and naval base Vladivostok.  China regards this land as it once did Hong Kong, territory that will inevitably revert to Beijing's rule.  Russia disagrees.  Not a bone of contention now, but certainly potentially a problem in the future.

China, as a former imperial power and a regime currently bullying its neighbors, has a long list of potential adversaries should a general war break out.  Almost certainly the United States and Japan would form the core of the effort.  North Korea (perhaps China's closest bordering friend) involvement brings in the modern and well-trained military of South Korea.

Taiwan has every reason to fear Chinese hegemony in the Far East, but could convince itself that non belligerency could save it if China won the war.  It would not, but humanity has enormous powers of self-deception.

Definite maybes include Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain.  Britain's shrunken role as a Great Power has not deterred it from assisting the United States in opposing aggression. It remembers well the inability of Neville Chamberlain's goodwill in heading off Hitler.  Because Japan and the US would shoulder most of the load, the three British Commonwealth countries would.

Vietnam and the Philippines also have every reason to fear Chinese aggrandizement.  The former US colony sits right in the path of China's oceanic power play.  A Chinese victory would almost certainly reduce them to satellite status.  Both countries also have difficult geographical features and long traditions of guerrilla warfare that would cost China resources and benefit it very little.  Still, a Far Eastern general war would likely mean American use of the Philippines as a major base, something China would want to prevent.  The Philippines would very likely join.  Vietnam only if they felt menaced during the war or by the possible outcome.

India looms as possibly the next great English speaking democratic power.  It remains an X factor because the United States has done very little to cultivate good relations with this potential powerhouse.  Currently some in India have asked that the United States lift natural gas export restrictions. Purchasing from the United States, from their point of view, is both less expensive and better for their security concerns.

China, however, has a strong relationship with Iran.  Iran aggression coordinated with China could pose major problems for a Western alliance.

As the president has embarked on the 23 days of Obamacare and everyone follows along, it does not hurt to remind ourselves that foreign dangers lurk as well.

Let the Games Begin!

Hillary Clinton opened the 2016 presidential campaign with a powerful first strike aimed at the heart of her presumed to be most important opponent.  At a conference of convenience store owners in Atlanta, the former secretary of state related how she fully supported the decision to kill Bin Laden while the Vice President waffled.

Joe Biden has attended a number of events in Iowa while making the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner rounds elsewhere.

Many, including some presidential aides, say the nomination is Clinton's to lose.  But "experts" said much the same in 2008.

Interestingly, this could reignite the Benghazi scandal.  Besides her general lack of authority in office or accomplishment as secretary of state, the Benghazi raid remains her weak point.  Will Democrats who ignored Republican questions listen to Biden camp arguments?

America could finally get some real answers.

Also, the Bin Laden raid has become in Democratic circles the measure of toughness.  Even those, like Jonah Goldberg, who argued that he should have been captured and questioned, have faced strong attack.  It has hidden the wayward and bizarre foreign policy of Obama.  A pusillanimous policy with the facade of the cowboy that frittered away international respect.

Biden finds himself in the same position as Hubert Humphreys in 1968. Much of his bosses policies deserve criticism.  How far will he go to build credibility by attacking the poor decisions of the man who named him vice president?  Especially since Biden can hang many of those albatrosses around Clinton?

Recent GOP intraparty debates have centered around principle, not personality.  Should be interesting and instructive to see the Democrats fight over Biden versus Clinton

Joe Biden Causes Increases In Rapes

The Joe Biden Theory of Police Presence and Increases of Instances of Rape can be put to teh test in other areas besides Republican fiscal responsibility.

Joe Biden supports OWS and like movements across the country.

Prominent officials' support of such movements encourage local city governments to tolerate their presence no matter how violent, unhealthful, etc. they get.

A large assemblage of shady characters requires a larger than normal police presence.

Those police are not on their usual beats.

This causes rapes.

Therefore, according to his own logic . . .

Joe Biden causes rape.

Is Joe Biden Eccentric Or Crazy?

Is Joe Biden eccentric, or is he a lunatic? Don't ask me. Ask reporter Scott Powers, who was put in a closet during a fundraiser under guard. The links below were posted on the Republican National Committee Facebook page, but as you can see, they link some liberal and neutral sites as sources. This is much stranger stuff than not being able to spell "potato." Biden’s Staff Put A Pool Reporter In A Storage Room “To Keep Him From Talking To The Many High-Profile Guests” During A Fundraiser For Senator Ben Nelson. “Scott Powers, a writer for the Orlando Sentinel, was serving as the pool reporter for a fundraiser in Florida, where Biden was appearing to raise money on behalf of Sen. Bill Nelson on Wednesday. But to keep him from talking to the many high-profile guests at the event, a member of Biden's staff stuffed Powers in a storage closet and stood guard outside the door until she deemed it ‘safe’ for Powers to emerge.” (Jack Mirkinson, “Biden Team Apologizes To Reporter Scott Powers For Keeping Him In Closet During Fundraiser,” The Huffington Post, 3/28/11) “‘The Protocol Is They Didn't Want Me To Talk To Anybody,’ Powers Told ‘Good Morning America’ Reporter Matt Gutman In An Interview On Monday.” (Lucy Madison, “Biden Team Apologizes To Reporter For Making Him Wait In A Closet,” CBS News, 3/28/11) Biden’s Staff Apologized For The Choice Of Hold Room. “‘Scott - You have our sincere apologies for the lack of a better hold room today,’ wrote Vice President Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander last Wednesday to Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11) “‘Lack Of A Better Hold Room’ Is An Interesting Way Of Putting It.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11) Powers Was Kept In The Closet For Over An Hour Waiting For Biden And Senator Nelson To Speak. “Any time he stuck his head out he'd been shooed back inside. He said he was held for more than an hour in the closet, was allowed out for 35 minutes of remarks by Biden and Nelson, after which it was back into the closet until the VP left.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11) “Forcing Reporters Into Closets Is Generally Not The Tradition Of Politicians In The US.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11)Read more: http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/biden_off_the_rails#ixzz1HuVLYjV4

"Hand to hand combat" Promised By Obama After Election

Obama and his spokesmen had two interesting statements this week connected to the midterm elections.

First came the news that he will leave on November 5 instead of the 7th on a trip to India. Interesting idea, drive your party to defeat and then leave the country. I wonder if he will get any golf in over there?

Next came something more ominous. Obama promised "hand to hand combat" with Republicans after they make gains this November. Look for Congress to defund and box off his health care initiative and work to limit the reach of the EPA. Obama's reaction is interesting since his ideas and policies resulted in the congressional defeats. This year is a referendum on his left wing ideology and Americans are clearly not buying it. What is interesting is that Joe Biden said he would "strangle" Republicans who opposed their debt ridden budget proposals.

So the president and vice president are figuratively using the language of murder to describe their frustration with the GOP, the Tea Party, and the electorate for rejecting leftism. Of course they won't be literally killing Republicans, but their language reflects their frustration.

In 1995 when the GOP took over Congress, they skirmished with Clinton, but also hammered out welfare reform. In 2007, you saw Bush retrench and try to find ways to work with Congress (although this led to some negative outcomes). I seriously do not see Obama working with congressional Republicans in the remaining two years of his term. Like Andrew Johnson, he will more likely go off the deep end and become a bizarre spectacle, shunned by both parties.

Look for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination in 2012. Just my gut feeling.

Good Times When Obama Improvises

Once again the president demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the very issues he pushes. The following came from a recent appearance by The Won.

A student raised a question about the government's provision of health services and its impact on private services. Obama answered:

"How can a private company compete against the government? My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete.

"They do it all the time. If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.... there is nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace. As long as it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are providing a good deal, we keep having to pony up more and more money."

You know, that sounds like a great argument AGAINST government intervention in health care. Gee America, your health care can be run just with as much cost efficiency as the Postal Service.

Of course Fed Ex is not exactly running in a purely capitalist mode either, having somehow gotten John Kerry to successfully introduce legislation many years ago to tweak the law and give them an advantage over UPS. Meanwhile the Postal Service, unable to handle its own task efficiently, repeatedly contracts out a lot of work to UPS.

Obama really needs to stick to his script. When he gets too far away from it, too much truth comes out. Then he just sounds like Joe Biden.

The Russians Would Like to Know Who Runs American Foreign Policy: So Would We!

The rank incompetence of Obama's foreign policy exploded once again in the Maximum Duce's face. This time the object of his policy has a point.

Obama took to Russia with him the language of apology and conciliation, part of the "America is evil" world tour that left him to embrace opponents and ditch old friends. That country, led by Vladimir Putin through a puppet president (no one seems to acknowledge that fact anymore) seemed to accept Obama at face value, just like everyone else.

The next interesting statement came from the Vice President. Joe Biden told an American newspaper (apparently not knowing that Russians read them) that Russia's economic weakness would present Americans with an opportunity to get more national security concessions out of them.

Russians, understandably, reacted with anger and confusion. Which statement reflected real American policy?

As usual, Joe Biden is right in his assessment. The Russians are right in saying that it reflects more of a Dick Cheney style hard nosed approach than Obama's airy apologies. Russians also tend historically to respect blunt hard diplomacy much more than airy platitudes. However, Mr. Vice President, truths need not be told simply to make yourself look intelligent. Russia knows what shape it is in. It does not need you to remind them. This certainly will not help relations.

As usual, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gets the job of sewer cleaner. When Obama, Biden, or the various czars leave a pile of crap, she must don the gloves and clean it up. She called Russia a "world power" on the Sunday shows, but no one believes that she has any input on anything.

The Bush approach lay in occasional expressions of vague concern with, very likely, blunt expressions in private. Russia understands the language and methods of power betterthan most. They are much better off when they respect your country because they only like those whom they find subordinate. Obama's schizophrenic foreign policy complex has undermined whatever his goals are yet again.

Gotta Love Joe Biden

What if there is a tie?

There are few battle ground states that are going to decide the Presidential Election, but there is the possibility of an Electoral College tie. If that happens, then the presidental election falls to the US House of Representatives and the vice presidental election to the Senate.

The only time in US History that a tie occurred was the election of 1824. John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson tied in the Electoral College. Both candidates were members of the Democratic-Republican Party. February 9th, 1825 the House elected John Quincy Adams to the Presidency. The fight in the House led a split in the Democratic-Republican Party. The result was the formation of the current Democratic Party led by Andrew Jackson and the National Republican Party led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.

But what if there was a tie today? If Obama wins Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa but loses Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio to McCain, both candidates would have 269 electoral votes.

The House is currently controlled by the Democrat Party and that leads most to believe that the house would vote for Obama, but the constitution forces each state vote as a delegation. Each state only gets one vote. 27 state of delegations that are Democrat majority, 21 are Republican and 2 state are equal.

But there is a catch. Some states will have voters support one parties candidate, while the congressional delegation is a majority of the other candidates party. West Virginia while most likely be one of those states. The polls show McCain the likely winner in WV, but Rahall and Mollohan will be able to out vote Capito to give the state to Obama. It will be a political blood bath. Mollohan and Rahall will be under termendous pressure from the Democratic Party to case their votes for Obama, while the people of West Virginia will be pushing them to vote for McCain. There choices could very well decide the outcome of the 2010 WV Congressional Elections for both.

It gets better. The Senate picks the Vice President. The Senate is near evenly split and Joe Liberman caucases with the Democrats, but is supporting McCain-Palin. The Senate could very easily pick Palin as the Vice President and if they do and the House has not decided, then she would be come president until the House decides. President Bush could be succeded by President Palin, only to be succeded by President Obama shortly after. It is possible that we end up with Obama as President and Palin as Vice President. If the House and Senate don't decide by Jan. 20th, 2008, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi becomes President until a decision is made.

Hold on it could be a wild ride.

New advertisement spotlights Obama/Biden's anti-coal stance

You can watch the new McCain ad here or read the transcript below.

For Immediate ReleaseSeptember 24, 2008

Contact: Press Office
McCain-Palin 2008 Launches New Web Ad: "The Coal Miner"
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest web ad, entitled "The Coal Miner." The ad highlights Joe Biden's recent comment that the Obama-Biden ticket is anti-coal and anti-clean coal. While John McCain supports an "all of the above" energy policy to achieve strategic energy independence, Barack Obama and Joe Biden continue to take options off the table, including now coal. VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT12O9bWUQw Script For "The Coal Miner" (Web :40) CHYRON: Obama + Biden CHYRON: They'll tell you they support coal. BARACK OBAMA: We're the Saudi Arabia of coal. CHYRON: Then for a vote. Say no way. JOE BIDEN: No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there. CHYRON: For it here... BARACK OBAMA: I actually mentioned in my speech, my convention acceptance speech, the need for the development of clean coal technology. CHYRON: Against it here... WOMAN: Solar, are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting... BIDEN: We're not supporting clean coal. CHYRON: That must be why he said. CHRYON: "I'm a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, PA." CHYRON: Obama + Biden CHYRON: Ready to Pander? Yes. Ready to Lead? No. AD FACTS: Script For "The Coal Miner" (Web :40) CHYRON: Obama + Biden. They'll tell you they support coal. BARACK OBAMA: We're the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Barack Obama: "We're the Saudi Arabia of coal." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Duryea, PA, 9/5/08)CHYRON: Then for a vote. Say no way. JOE BIDEN: No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there.
Joe Biden: "No Coal Plants Here In America. Build Them, If They're Going To Build Them Over There Make Them Clean Because They're Killing You." (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)CHYRON: For it here... BARACK OBAMA: I actually mentioned in my speech, my convention acceptance speech, the need for the development of clean coal technology.
Barack Obama: "I Actually Mentioned In My Speech, My Convention Acceptance Speech, The Need For The Development Of Clean-Coal Technology." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Duryea, PA, 9/5/08)CHYRON: Against it here... WOMAN: Solar, are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting... BIDEN: We're not supporting clean coal.
Joe Biden" "We're Not Supporting Clean Coal." WOMAN: "Senator, Senator, wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "Say ... I didn't hear what you said." WOMAN: "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "We're not supporting clean coal. Guess what. China's building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States. It's causing people to die." (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)CHYRON: That must be why he said. CHRYON: "I'm a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, PA." CHYRON: Obama + Biden. Ready to Pander? Yes. Ready to Lead? No.
Joe Biden: "I Hope You Won't Hold It Against Me, But I Am A Hard-Coal Miner, Anthracite Coal, Scranton, Pa." "In his first visit to Southwest Virginia, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, speaking at the United Mine Workers' annual fish fry here on Saturday, was quick to tout his ties to coal. 'I hope you won't hold it against me, but I am a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, Pa.,' Biden said. 'It's nice to be back in coal country. ... It's a different accent [in Southwest Virginia] ... but it's the same deal. We were taught that our faith and our family was the only really important thing, and our faith and our family informed everything we did.'" (Debra McCown, "Biden: 'It's Nice To Be Back In Coal Country,'" Bristol Herald Courier, 9/21/08)

Who Is Truly Ready to Make a Difference in West Virginia?

West Virginia received some good news today. Beth Walker's run for State Supreme Court has impressed exactly half of the state's voters. The most recent polls show that the race between Walker and the second place Democratic opponent remains too close to select a leader. In a state where 2/3 of the voters register with the Democratic Party, this is good news to anyone looking to change our anti-business climate.

A Walker victory means a shift away from our state's "judicial hellhole" reputation. She can join others on the bench who join many West Virginians in being tired of crackpot lawsuits and their damaging effect on our economy. Why would anyone want to do business in a state that does nothing to discourage the most ridiculous claims against honest business owners while allowing benefits to the friends of the powerful? We need rule of law in West Virginia, not rule of lawsuits.

On the other hand, Nancy Guthrie has swallowed the Obama change mantra hook, line and sinker. She has adapted it to her own political campaign, albeit clumsily according to Vic Sprouse's Change West Virginia blog. How West Virginia Democrats can run on a change platform is beyond my comprehension, unless they tell the whole state to do something it has rarely done in the past seventy-five years, vote Republican.

*************************************************************************

They may have reached that decision anyway. With Democrats putting signs for Gary Howell, Dan Greear, Russ Weeks, Beth Walker, and others in their yards, maybe our state is finally fed up with seventy-five years of misrule.

*************************************************************************

Has anyone else noticed the change in Obama lately? Mean spirited, sarcastic, no longer confident and pleasant looking. We may be seeing the real Obama here folks. As was said so eloquently on the movie Super Troopers, "desperation is a stinky cologne." The weird inability to stay on message is also a telling sign that the wheels fell off some time ago.

As for Biden, has anyone seen him at all lately? Do the Democrats have a bunker that they stuffed him into? What an inspired choice for them. It is almost as if they saw Biden as Obama's Dick Cheney. Taking pages from the Bush victory story is something I never thought I would see a Democrat attempt. Maybe they ought to listen to the Republican experts that say personally attacking Palin is a horrible idea. I can honestly say that Uncle Joe would have done that campaign a lot more good than Biden.

Personally I would almost bet that the Democrat power brokers have privately folded their tents. They will return to do penance at the Temple of Hillary, and wait for the next favorable time to unleash her on the electorate.

Gov. Palin...An example for WV

She's on the cover of Time magazine. Biden didn't get on the cover. The article summarizes her political career and gives a strong strategy for how she brought change to Alaska and how we can bring change to WV. In the campaign for mayor of her small town, she drew on the state party and invoked major issues into small town politics. The message, don't just re-elect the mayor cause he's a nice guy, elect the person who represents you and your beliefs. When she left her mayoral position due to term limits in 2002 she refused to support her mother-in-law and backed the opposing candidate. The article points to her stance as a pro-life politician and her mother-in-laws position as pro-choice. As we have learned that is a major disagreement in the Palin house.

What impresses me about that decision is that she didn't back her mother-in-law because she was a nice person (she may not be, but let's assume she is), nor because she was related to her. She chose to support the candidate whose beliefs mirrored her own. I think there is a strong lesson for West Virginians in there. Too often we elect County Commissioners, City officials, mayors, legislators and senators based on their being nice guys. Often we are related to a person running, but that shouldn't force us to vote for that person. Maybe you went to high school with the candidate, maybe you see them monthly or weekly for lunch, but do their political beliefs match your own better than the other candidate's? After all, these shouldn't be popularity contests that always go to the good old boys, it is a political office where decisions are made that will impact your life and family. How many times do we hear about what Senator Byrd did for WV and that we owe it to him to keep voting him into office each go-around? Or the threat of lost jobs if he isn't around to dump a bunch of money into the state? Questioning that line of thought is border-line heresy in WV.

I hope the WV Republican party will run with her strategy. Introduce major issues into local races. Discuss abortion, gun-rights, taxation and other pro-family, conservative issues during school board elections, local, county and state elections. Too many people, including myself, forget that our political system doesn't filter down from Washington, it is built from the local level up. Supporting local candidates whom you disagree with politically allows them to support, both politically and financially, the next candidate up the totem pole. This support continues all the way up the line to our DC representatives. If we want to turn this state away from Democrat domination, it will start with local elections and impacting the lives of our neighbors for the better, not in a massive dog fight against Gov. Manchin, Senator Byrd, or Congressman Mollohan.

I hope we take this lesson to heart and bring real change to WV.

Why Not Mo-Joe instead of Boring Joe?

When Obama selected Joe Biden last week as his running mate, it caught some folks off guard. Tim Kaine was assumed by many to be the front runner, a moderate Democrat from a prosperous swing state. Maybe he decided this was not the right year to go national, maybe Obama decided against him.

Joe Biden is solid in experience, but otherwise an odd selection. The podium beneath him has more natural charisma and name recognition. He comes from a state likely to support Obama anyway and will not help the Democratic nominee score points with conservatives.

Was another Joe at one time in consideration? Certainly Manchin has charisma and conservative credentials. He comes from a small state likely to go McCain, but Manchin has influence among voters. One must wonder if the recent WVU scandals eliminated Joe Manchin from the list of possibilities. Other than that, he would seem to have been a better choice than Biden in many ways. Then again Manchin also may have declined to become first officer on this sinking ship.

The Democratic Party is looking at a significant, if not a landslide loss this year. Obama's ties to domestic terrorism will shock the public when they become widely known. William Ayers is the Left's version of Timothy McVeigh, he just did not succeed in his most ambitious plans.

*************************************************************

Once again the media has opened a flurry of under the bus tossing. Obama has thrown a lot of folks under the bus lately as the wheels fall off his bid for power. This phrase likely refers to the statement often made bythe Bolsheviks that a just society would happen when the child of a factory worker could throw the child of a doctor under a bus and most would approve.

Pretty typical.