09/09 Morning Report

Well, Obama’s positions are pretty clear. If you’ve had doubts, or confusion on some points, you can go read Biil O’Reilly’s article in full. Here are a couple of excerpts…

As far as philosophy goes, Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position and he promotes it well.

In other words, I don’t get to say what my money buys or who gets to spend it…the government does. I may not be quite that blunt and hard lined, but that is what it boils down to.

The senator also believes that poor Americans have a basic right to free health care and monetary supplements from the government with no strings attached. The American substance abuser, for example, would derive the same benefits as would a hard-working, laid-off worker.

Now, do not get me wrong. I think everyone in hard times needs help. That is supposed to be a basic tenent of most religions, though many religious (Christian and non-Christian, by the way) tend to practice it only towards those in their particular religious group as opposed to all men. But, here is my beef…why should those who abuse the system, and break the law, get that kind of treatment? It’s a lot like illegal immigration. If we make everyone provide proof of citizenship, how is that discriminatory towards any group?

(…but liberalism is what it is…and it does not make sense to me very often…)

Meanwhile, one USA Today article said that Republicnas got a HUGE lift from the convention (,,,duh…)

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

Meanwhile, one USA Today article said that Republicnas got a HUGE lift from the convention (,,,duh…)

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

In another article, a so-called “fact-check” on “the Bridge to no where”, the same news agency points out that:

As a candidate for governor, however, Palin supported the bridge.
"We need to come to the defense of southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table, like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.

Here’s my problem with these things. Liberal candidates are allowed and regularly reported to have done similar things, and changed their minds later. This is considered admirable. Obama has even done on issues involving Iraq, which the media thinks nothing of. So why is this any different?
(…maybe it relates to…say…liberals being behind in the polls?...oh I forgot…there is no such thing as media bias…how silly of me…)