Free Trade Video

Pretty interesting. Despite the lame music, I think this is very effective. Let Obama speak for himself.

Onward!

I can't say I didn't feel that Sen. Clinton was the better candidate and, if elected president, would be better for the country as a whole. Clearly I disagree with her on a lot of things, but she does have consistent logic about many things we disagree on that Sen. Obama lacks. Her experience, particularly with foreign policy, put her ahead for me. I do feel Obama is easier to beat in November.

Where McCain needs to go now is to prevent the nebulous change rhetoric from continuing ad nauseum.

1) Take on Obama's earmarks (specifically things like hundreds of thousands to buddy Pfleger, or $1 million to his wife's employer) Compare this to McCain's track record against pork and earmarks and how this stance differs from Bush and the republicans who have lost their seats because of their reckless spending. Think highway bill - fun fact, not a single democrat voted against that gem of spending.

2) McCain suggested the surge before the White House came around, he needs to continue to hit up how this was different from the Bush lack of plan and suggest how his direction is different than Bush's current plans. Obama is simply regurgitating the same argument since the beginning and not dealing with the realities on the ground. You break it, you buy it.

3) I'd love to see a good list of the billions of handouts Obama is using to buy votes. Sure, "free" college, "free" health care, $1000 tax cuts, "cheap" hybrid cars all sound wonderful... but a good job adding up those costs as well as other expansions of government (including 70k more troops) could do well to show the utopian pipe dream he has created.

4) McCain desperately needs to make his health care case more succinctly and in terms Americans can connect to. Mindless democrats will continue to suck up the feel goods by trying to do something for the little guy while ignoring facts and continuing to assume anything but throwing money at an issue is simply evil and greedy. Many will incorrectly assume that McCain wont do anything about health care, whereas Obama is making this a cornerstone of his campaign. McCain needs to do a better job of making it the cornerstone of his - it's in my opinion the issue this campaign and why I'm not considering a third party vote.

Here's hoping Clinton doesn't end up VP and the moderate end of their party has hope for some real change by voting McCain. I like listening to Obama speak about as much as I like listening to Bush speak if that says anything, so I hope McCain gets on the offensive so I can stop watching rewinds of Obama's same speech again and again.

Farm Bill Vetoed

Good news: Bush vetoed the "irresponsible" farm bill. $300 billion not wasted so far, but I imagine with some tweaks they'll still end up signing something fairly hefty. To roundup nationally and locally:

• Obama supports
• Clinton supports
• McCain opposes

• Udall supports
• Pearce supports
• Wilson opposes

Why might you want to oppose? Some obvservations here or you can enjoy selected earmarks from Swine Line:

-$500 million for the Qualified Forestry Bonds Program. This program was added to the Farm Bill to benefit one company, the Plum Creek Timber Company.

-$170 million for distressed salmon fishermen in California, Oregon and Washington. Maybe they just need a good therapist.

-The Equine Equity Act. According to Sen. McConnell (R-Ky.), “My legislation will remove the unfair tax burden on horses that discourage investment in the horse industry.”

Fun stuff! Of course I'm not interested in subsidies that affect the market and in the end hurt everybody involved but the minority that are making money from the rest of our hard work. Even in cases where one might be absolutely needed, $750,000 is a bit much for us to consider needing a lot of help through subsidies. It also doesn't help when senators don't understand basic terms and cite those reasons for their vote.

Free Trade: Colombia & Cuba

"Complete free trade is not politically feasible. Why? Because it's only in the general interest and in no one's special interest." -Milton Freidman

A quote from Sen. Obama I completely agree with:

"I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba... It's time for us to acknowledge that that particular policy has failed." -Sen Obama

Keeping up an embargo wont help Cuba become democratic. I understand the initial reasonings, but what are you going to do. I'm skeptical on whether embargo or even sanctions are worth it. So, I'm glad we've got a candidate who seems to appreciate the importance of free trade.

And then...it goes out the window:

"I will oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements." -Sen. Obama

Ouch. So I guess Milton Friedman was right. Oh, and about that violent in Colombia? Thanks to the Washington Post for pointing out the facts on the matter:

Colombia is, indeed, violent -- though homicide has dramatically declined under Mr. Uribe. There were 17,198 murders in 2007. Of the dead, only 39 -- or 0.226 percent -- were even members of trade unions, let alone leaders or activists, according to the Colombian labor movement. (Union members make up just under 2 percent of the Colombian population.)

Catering to the special interests?

Obama: Debate Taxes

This is the moment of the debate (full transcript) I'm lingering on most this morning:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you take the same pledge? ["I am absolutely committed to not raising a single tax on middle- class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year." -Sen. Clinton]

OBAMA: Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.

...

GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 -- and 200-and-what? $250,000?

OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it, but it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

Okay... sounds like good news and a chance to solve the argument I've been having around the office about exactly what nebulous phrases like "I wont raise taxes on the middle class" actually means. Thanks, a hard number for me to consider before November. Oh... wait... Sen. Obama is talking about raising the capital gains tax. Oh, what's that, Charlie?

GIBSON: But, Senator, but that's a tax. That's a tax...

OBAMA: Well, no, no, look...

GIBSON: ... on people under $250,000.

OBAMA: Let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton said she certainly wouldn't do this, this was a bad idea. In Iowa, when she was outside of camera range, said to an individual there she'd certainly consider the idea and then that was recorded. And she apparently wasn't aware that it was being recorded.

So this is an option that I would strongly consider, because the alternatives, like raising the retirement age or cutting benefits or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people who make less than $97,000 a year...

GIBSON: But there's a heck of a lot of...

OBAMA: ... those are not good policy options.

GIBSON: There's a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200,000 and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes...

OBAMA: And that's...

GIBSON: ... that's going to raise taxes on them.

OBAMA: And that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.

But the point is we're going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can't get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it's going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system.

And I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we're going to do that and not just say that we're going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

Emphasis my own. Ignoring whether one thinks the capital gains tax actually should be raised beyond that cap, I find it amazing that in the span of a few questions Sen. Obama is so quick to suggest raising taxes on the income level he just pledged not to raise taxes on. And the reasoning for doing so is solid and something I actually agree with: You can't get something for nothing. That includes (from Sen. Obama's website):

• He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven
• Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
• Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.
• Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

I guess that "you can't get something for nothing" + programs = higher taxes for people he pledged to lower taxes for.

Obama, Petraeus and Iraq

The Washington Post has the full text of Senator Obama's exchange with General Petreaus. There's some interesting comments here but I think ultimately they agreed on the following:

OBAMA:

If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.

CROCKER: ...

I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.

But that's not where we are now.

That seems like they agree on the ultimate conditions and the ultimate goal but phrase it slightly differently. The key to Sen. Obama's difference in opinion is as follows, "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind -- and this is where we disagree -- includes a timetable for withdrawal." I'll take that to mean a hard date for withdrawal. This presents to me two possible endpoints for the solution:

1) We're in it to stay until Iraq is secure enough to manage itself.
2) It is too costly in both dollars and lives to remain there beyond a particular date despite what the condition is.

Sen. Obama is taking the middle ground between these two points and it doesn't quite add up. He was quick to point out in the questioning that he felt "the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder" and that seems to play into this dual endgame - wanting to finish the job but leave at a predefined date regardless of the condition on the ground.
I'd like a clearer answer as to what he feels considering the two positions. Honestly, if he went all in on one answer or the other I'd have a lot more respect for him. I feel Sen. McCain has embraced the first view wholeheartedly and Rep. Paul has embraced the second and both men I can understand their decisions and reasoning behind it. I'd love to hear some more discussion on this topic from Sen. Obama or members of his camp that are willing to provide me with links.