So Now That I've Voted...

My part in the 114th election cycle (or is it the 20th or the 847th?) is done.  I would like to point out, that once again I did not see my name on the ballot.  I didn't even vote for myself for any of the offices up for election.

Now some conspiracy theorists might suggest that this is a direct result of the biased Anti-Mook media machine making sure that my name didn't get out to the voting public, as well as airing commercials subliminally hypnotizing me into voting against myself.  Some might say it was Islamic Jihadists trying to suppress freedom and the American Way (Which I clearly represent at all turns), or the Koch brothers spending billions in silencing my voice among the masses of their preferred candidates.

I assure you, that none of these scenarios are the case. Since the voting polls are still open, I will take this time to get out my political message, before going silent on the matter until at least Monday, when the next election cycle punditry shall start with all those talking heads on TV.

I chose to not run for any office this year because in 2016, it will be the first time in my life that I will be eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States of America. 

Soon to be renamed the Mookified Compound

Because of the two year time crunch, I would not want to burden my supporters with the fact that I, as their chosen leader, would be forced to spend all the time I am supposed to be representing them out on the campaign trail.  Also, If I were to end up in an office that the term would over run that time frame, I would not want to disappoint them by leaving my elected position to take over the bigger better opportunity.

So, in the off chance that too many of you numbskulls wrote me in as your candidate of choice, let me be clear.  I am regretfully informing you that I am hereby conceding this year's elections.  It was a non hard fought battle, but I have stepped aside from the path of all my many opponents. the more they wreck shit between now and then, the greater my accomplishments as leader of the free world, and eventually the universe (I'll be more specific on my plans for NASA at a later date) will seem.

"But what about getting some government experience before attempting to ascend to the Presidency?" you say. To this I answer: I will not be labeled a political/Washington insider. The only pork I want to be associated with supporting between now and then will be bacon. And bratwursts- lots of both.

The kind of pork Washington DC needs!

With your help in 2 years, I will see us through a new sense of economic prosperity to include greater investments in business as well as higher wages for many.  A complete change in our foreign policy, and total reform of immigration.  The budgets will be balanced, the national debts drawn down, infrastructure improved and other amazing things that will blow your minds.  I'd put it down in writing, but by keeping it in my head, none of these idiots in Washington that are all about them and their parties taking credit for shit can steal it and destroy the perfection of the idea and screw 90% of the population, or more.

So consider today, the day you elect your representatives for this midterm election, the day I officially announce my candidacy for the next President of the United States.  I'll accept your support in the form of PAC money, or just straight cash in hand. Thank you for not voting for me this time around, and good night my fellow Americans.

Be a freedom loving patriot- Vote Mookie in 2016!

A Consensus On Government Intervention In Our Economy? Depends On Who You Talk To.

First there was TARP, the initial bailout plan. The government approved and distributed hundreds of billions of dollars, taxpayer monies either printed out of thin air or borrowed from other countries with a nice interest rate attached to our new and growing debt, piled onto an already enormous amount of debt that we seem so fond of building upon. As recent history has noted, we basically wasted that money on a whole lot of nothing. We stuck money into the hands of already rich people, who basically decided to hold onto the money for themselves. Instead of loosening the credit markets and rebooting the economy, we added a big pile of debt that we'll be paying on for decades, despite having seen any real benefit. So, government intervention is good? Not in this case, but chalk the government up for a score. Government: 1 The People: 0

Now we have TARP 2....the new stimulus package that is being hammered out into an agreeable plan between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The whole plan is being engineered by the same guys who engineered the first one. And like the first one, there is little to no accountability for any of the numbers. Who gets the money? How much do they get? What will these monies produce in the end? And to all three questions, I'll bet less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the populace in general, if not the same percentage of those voting on it, could give you a reliable answer. We're just set, regardless of public support, to start throwing money out at random ideas in hopes that something sticks and works. And while the government is supposed to work for us people, it is us people who are having the wool pulled over our eyes. The President has and does want this package passed as quickly as possible, with little to no debate, so that the money can start flowing into the hands of those the administration deems worthy. Now Our President and many "esteemed" members of congress, mainly democrats, are convinced that we as individuals, and businesses cannot solve our problems. Only the great and powerful U.S. Government, in all its inifinite wisdom (remember they already fleeced us for hundreds of billions once, and if your anti-war, Bush-hating people, the government was the ones behind confirming the intelligence and sending us to Iraq..pure geniuses on both counts, eh?), is the only entity capable of solving our problems. Nevermind the fact that some of our problems, economically speaking were forced on us, via government policy, as well as by example. How can the government tell us how to be fiscally responsible when they are in fact the greatest creators of debt and deficit the world has ever known. In fact, the majority of the major players involved in "solving our collective problems" were partly responsible for helping create some of these problems to begin with. Now maybe that last point can be a point of contention for some, but regardless of politics, it is those certain people of influence who helped shape policy in the past that got us to this point. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the addage "You made the mess, clean it up", but spending outrageous amounts of money (especially on quite a few programs that do nothing for the economy other than throwing money around at nonproductive measures..uh, bike trails anyone? hellooooo?)
Many people voted President Obama into office, not over John McCain, but in response to George W Bush's 8 years of office. They called for the hope and change that Obama touted so greatly. And yet, here is Obama, doing the exact same things we tried under Bush, hiring the exact same people who have been running around Washington for years, some longer than Obama has even lived life on this planet. So, the change is nowhere to be seen, as of yet...other than the fact that our president has a different name than the one we had just a month ago. Oh wait, I'm mistaken..I just saw some loose change on the floor. As for the Hope issue...well here's to hoping we as a nation, or at least our powers that be, don't royally screw us up for an indefinite and unforeseeable future. I now plan to keep a jar of vaseline with me everytime I go to get my paycheck, because sooner or later the piper is going to want to be paid, and guess who he is gonna come to for the money..you and me, that's who. All because our wonderful "leaders" in Washington have the most brilliant of ideas that always end up costing us money, while they attend their cocktail parties and laugh at the rest of us poor folks who think we really have any power to stick it to them. Because afterall, its the special interest guru who's tending bar that night, and he's mixing up their drinks real special....they just gave his cause a tax break plus a few hundren million bucks. Lucky us!
Below is a quote from President Barack Obama, made in January, followed by an open letter from some economists who have some slightly different ideas than he does.

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
James Bennett, George Mason University
Bruce Benson, Florida State University
Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
Alberto Bisin, New York University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
George Brower, Moravian College
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Henry Butler, Northwestern University
William Butos, Trinity College
Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Art Carden, Rhodes College
James Cardon, Brigham Young University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
John Dawson, Appalachian State University
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
James Dorn, Towson University
Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Francis Egan, Trinity College
John Egger, Towson University
Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
Peter Frank, Wingate University
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
William Gerdes, Clarke College
Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Richard Gordon, Penn State University
Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
Ernie Goss, Creighton University
Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
Gailen Hite, Columbia University
Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
Marek Kolar, Delta College
Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Deepak Lal, UCLA
George Langelett, South Dakota State University
James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
Robert Lawson, Auburn University
John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Dean Lillard, Cornell University
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
John Lunn, Hope College
Glenn MacDonald, Washington
University in St. Louis
Michael Marlow, California
Polytechnic State University
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
James Miller III, George Mason University
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Munger, Duke University
Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
Seth Norton, Wheaton College
Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Evan Osborne, Wright State University
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
Adriano Rampini, Duke University
Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
James Smith, Western Carolina University
Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Shirley Svorny, California State
University, Northridge
John Tatom, Indiana State University
Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Alex Tokarev, The King's College
Edward Tower, Duke University
Leo Troy, Rutgers University
David Tuerck, Suffolk University
Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
Walter Williams, George Mason University
Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University
Additional economists who have signed the statement

Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
John Bethune, Barton College
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
Jack Estill, San Jose State University
Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University
Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Richard Hart, Miami University
James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Daniel Houser, George Mason University
Thomas Howard, University of Denver
Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
James Kurre, Penn State Erie
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
Henry Manne, George Mason University
Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
Tim Muris, George Mason University
John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Robert Prati, East Carolina University
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
John Seater, North Carolina University
Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Simmons, Greenfield Community College
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
Scott Sumner, Bentley University
Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
William Trumbull, West Virginia University
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
Randall Valentine, Georgia Southwestern State University
Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
Gene Wunder, Washburn University
John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Debate Analysis- 3 Days Later

This last Wednesday night I saw the first 2/3 of the presidential debate (the first one I've actually watched, and more geared toward doemstic policy) before my wife distracted me with what she likes to call better action than politics, which she hates.
(3 points for the wife)

First off, IF this was my first exposure to the whole campaign, and I came in totally ignorant of everything, Obama won the debate, and I would definitely be voting for him over McCain.
(1 point Obama)

My take on the negative campaigning question, I had issue with both of them. Neither really answered. Obama tip-toed around the question, while McCain expressed disgust with negativity while simultaneously throwing in a few negative sounding jabs at the democrats.
(0 points)

On the economy, Obama sounded really great. McCain's plan was pretty sound on the surface. However its amazing to me that the moderator showed results of both plans adding about $200 billion to the deficit annually. Obama later retorted something to the effect of all independent organizations showed his plan to be perfectly sound and on target (I dont have the exact words, so don't quote me). McCain wasn't exactly on target either, but I think he had a greater grasp on the simple math...added to the fact that he supports line-item vetos, which would greatly help to reduce useless expenditures. Obama said programs would need to be cut in order to make room for some of his programs. I get that, however, his plan still leaves way too much taxation on the group that will provide more tax money either directly, or through new jobs that provide for more taxes through those people. Everytime in history has shown unfair taxation on the producers has resulted in less overall tax rolls.
So just what is Obama going to cut???
I do agree with Obama on working the tax code to encourage American companies to bring their production back home, while discouraging further outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.
(draw- 1 point each)

On energy policy, both had great ideas. Obama is still pondering the whole drilling issue, while McCain is ready to act. I score McCain that point. No matter what we do, we have to utilize all options, not just drilling, and not just anti drilling. As cheap as it makes gas in Iowa, the ethanol mandate needs to go, along with their subsidies. Obama made a point about the oil cmpanies having 68million undrilled acres of land they have leased,where they COULD get oil. The problem with that is, IS THERE ACTUALLY ANY OIL THERE? I'm in favor of them "using it or losing it", but I think we ought to concentrate efforts of drilling where we KNOW its at. I think Obama is, while not saying it, against going that direction. (1 point McCain.
)

On healthcare, I think both candidates have great ideas, and some not so great ideas, but both fall short.
(0 points)

So tallying it up, Obama and McCain score 2 points in my book each. My wife gets her 3 points...so she wins....but I'm biased and she's not running or elegible for the office. Pure scoring would show Obama as the winner of this debate. So given the draw, in my books, the debate goes to McCain for not totally flubbing this one up. Noone expected him to be anywhere near close, at least not according to main stream media outlets, and even a lot of conservative media outlets. He held his own, despite poor coaching from the leadership of the GOP.


Both candidates stuck almost squarely to their side of the aisles arguments. Obama talks about reaching across the aisle, but his words arent as loud as his voting history. He's going to have to adopt a few conservative perspectives to get all those things done he says he will, unless of course the DNC achieves filibuster proof control of Congress. McCain talks about issues, but his words give way in favor of hard-right perspectives on what should be said and done. While associations with certain people can come into question and are important, along with judgement calls on things, the issues based solely on provable facts are the only real strength of a republican platform. Unfortunately the republicans always fall short on following a real gameplan.

Candidate Popularity, or Lack Thereof

THIS IS A REPRINT FROM MY JUVENILE MYSPACE BLOG:


Okay, so this 2nd and final entry for Open Forum this week again comes from Stoner.

For any who may have followed his blog since the beginning of the campaign season know he was a pretty big Joe Biden fan. Joe Biden received little support in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race to avid wasting money elsewhere. Who knows how he would've done elsewhere. Biden, despite his reputation as a longwinded blowhard, has smalltown working class roots that should identify with Iowans, but apparently this go around, it failed to garner much attention.

So he wants to know: How come hardly anyone gave two hoots about Joe Biden until he became Obama's running mate? If it's not just because he's joined forces with Obama, as I suspect, then what is it that changed? And what if the ticket positions were flipped?

My take is not so much that they are caring so much about Joe himself, but rather the fact that he is on the Obama ticket. Generally speaking, a vice presidential candidate will always garner more popularity and support because they are with the overall popular candidate of that party. Take for instance, Sarah Palin. Until she was announced as McCain's running mate, 90% (a low estimate, I'm sure) of Americans, nevermind conservatives, even knew who she was, nevermind care.

If the ticket positions were flipped, well Joe would obviously have popular support of the party and its voter base. How Obama did previously, his popularity would soar as the new VP pick. Plus, when it comes to garnering minority support, Obama would be the obvious choice...even though 90% of minorities vote for the democrat anyways. But with the choice of Biden by Obama, it is helping to gain some of the older more traditionalist white voters to support the Obama ticket. Had Obama picked someone like say Jesse Jackson, or his friend Deval Patrick, he would have lost a lot of support he enjoys today over McCain, by demographics alone.

READERS.....Your thoughts???

The Rrrrreessst of the Story

This is from an article out of National Review Online sent to me by a blogger from a different forum.


Six Points to Consider When Reading About Wasilla's Policy on Rape Kits

A few points to consider when you hear about the town of Wasilla, and its egregious former policy of charging rape victims for rape kits, a topic USA Today examined today.

1. It is indeed a terrible policy to charge a rape victim for the cost of collecting evidence to prosecute. But these charges occur, even in places where the law theoretically bans it. According to a 2008 U.S. News and World Report article, some Illinois rape victims are still being charged for the rape kits.

The state seemed to address this in a 2001 law, but it would seem that as usual, passing a law and getting a bureaucracy to comply are two different things.

2. Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Her critics can legitimately ask why, as mayor, she didn’t overrule her police chief. But they cannot charge that she supported the policy. In fact, there is not yet any evidence that Palin was aware of this policy.

3. The Police Chief of Wasilla who oversaw this policy may have been wrong to argue that the government should not cover the cost of the tests, but note that he did not want the victim to pay; he wanted to charge the perpetrators the cost.

Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.

Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

4. An aide to a Democratic state legislator tells USA Today that women in Wasilla did pay out of pocket for their rape kits. According to available FBI statistics, there were five rapes in Wasilla during the three years that they have online records for. The newspaper does the town a disservice by citing the statewide numbers and saying the state has the highest rate of rapes per person.

5. Starting next year, federal law will ban the practice of refusing "to cover the estimated $800 cost of a forensic rape exam unless the victim files a police report." That is the policy in "many" jurisdictions, according to the AP.

6. Let’s concede the worst, which was that this was an unforgivably stupid policy, and that Palin should have overturned it during her tenure. I’ll let Obama fans explain why that error in judgment is superior to voting "present" when dealing with "a bill permitting the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information."