I went to the Central Committee meeting last night. Hugh Hewitt was the keynote speaker, and gave his perspective on the election.

You can find my notes on the meeting here:

http://cdmpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/hugh-hewitt-at-orange-county-central.html

Perhaps a woman president in 2012?

The difference is just in the way it is covered.

http://cdmpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/10/150000-in-clothes-crickets-and.html

Thoughts from C17wife, and other Red State women?

This is all we need to say about Obama and Ayers.

Instead, we seem to be dissembling about people around a kitchen table, and when Obama knew.

Obama’s defense is that the actions of Ayers were dispicable, but that Ayers was mainstream. Talk about a leap of moral logic! We have to point out that Ayers actions were dispicable, and that Ayers was dispicable, and that Obama’s value judgement in declaring Ayers mainstream was incredibly flawed.

My gut instinct is that the people are “leaving the door open” for McCain. I base that on the reports from Ohio in regards to early voting, and the stickyness of Obama’s topline numbers.

I do not think McCain did as well as he could have, but I also do not believe that Obama delivered a knockout blow. CNN’s focus group from Ohio seemed to confirm this. But it is clear that the focus group wanted more detail, which left me asking my self if they really wanted to know what was going to be in Subsection C on page 451 of the federal budget? I don’t think – again at the gut level – that this is the detail that the voters want.

I think they want detail on how they make decisions, how they will manage a crisis, and who they will surround themselves with. This should favor McCain.

They also want an agenda. Not a laundry list, nor an out of the sky proposal, but an idea of where the country is; where the country needs to go; and how, in two or three ideas, we will get there.

This is what Reagan had in spades. He thought that America could return to its greatness (“Morning in America”), and that we could make America great again with lower taxes, less government, and by sticking it to the commies.

His agenda was that simple.

McCain needs to simplify his economic plan to a simple phrase – perhaps “competance and judgement” – see Fannie and Freddie? Drilling? Taxation?

McCain needs to keep up the attacks on Fannie and Freddie. He needs to do this, not Palin – as he nees to show mastery of the economy, but they have to be part of a larger discussion on competance and judgement.

Now on character, Palin needs to keep up the attacks, as well as be the abassador to the middle class. Say the word mother – A LOT! Talk about the relationship between gas prices at nearly for dollars per gallon and milk at nearly for dollars per gallon.

McCain needs t get back to fundamentals in teh campaign.

Identify Problem:

The Economy Sucks, largely due to an out of control Fannie and Freddie that issued mortgages to people who could nort afford to pay them back. The result is foreclosures on Main Street, as well as plunging property values. Furthermore, Fannie and Freddie spread these toxic mortgages to Wall St, and failure of the mortgages has led to a collapse of financial systems world wide.

The Middle Class is Hurting, due to the above, as well as rising prices, in particular, gas.

Record working on Problem:

Proposed legislation that would have limited and regulated Fannie and Freddie.
Proposed new drilling that would provide more oil, and bring down prices, as well as longterm alternative energy solutions.

Future solotions:

See Above

Contrast with opponent:

Obama has opposed new drilling, as well as as opposed regulation of Fannie and Freddie. In fact, while Fannie and Freddie were melting down, Obama was taking record contributions from them. America deserves better than to have a Senator who turned his head in return for campaign contreibutions from Fannie and Freddie.

… election day.

We need to hit Obama over his ties to Fannie and Freddie, and his refusal to back reform and oversight in 2005. Why is 2005 important? Because the majority of mortgages that are failing and have caused the meltdown of the housing markets, and the collapse on Wall Street, are from 2006 and 2007.

Obama is going to hit back with Carly and Phil Gramm, but lets be honest: nobody lost their house due to Carly Fiorina.

The states hit hardest by the mortgage collapse are: California, Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. Recognize four in that list we would like to win?

If we turn the economy into Mortgages and Oil, we will be percieved as stronger on the economy on Main St, because these are issues that everyday people can relate to.

Chris Cox is a favorite of conservatives. However, his position does serve at the confidence of the President, and the public; confidence has been waning, and justifiably so.

Now that McCain has made his point that someone in the administration needs to be accountable, wwe need to focus the message back to Obama. In speeches later today, he needs to drop the Cox reference, and make it solely about Obama.

… at ground zero of the subprime meltdown, I would detail a couple of things:

1) This whole meltdown is based on the failure of Mortgage Backed Securities.

2) Senator McCain signaled a warning in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie were skating on thin ice. In particular, the GSE’s were not able to report clean books, and had to restate earnings (not good when organizations can not balance their own books); Senator McCain called for oversight reform – Democrats in Congress resisted.

3) The subsequent mortgage vintages for 2006 and 2007 turned out to be the most toxic on history, with record rates of failure.

4) The Fannie and Freddie executives who brought us this mess have been retained by the Obama camp as advisors, one of whom was tapped to lead Obama’s VP search.

How can Obama claim to have the judgement to lead us out of this when he is being advised by the people who got us into it?

Why did Obama not support reform in 2005 before it was too late?

The Senate committee that is supposed to oversee the Mortgage industry is the Finance Committee, and Chairman Dodd was receiving special favors from the largest subprime lender (a Friend of Angelo). This was clearly a conflict of interest, yet Obama has not stood up to Senator Dood and asked him to step down.

They key to this is the period between 2005 and present, when the real toxic mortgages were issued.

experience. I guess I will have to agree to disagree with them. Also note that they do not say Obama is qualified.

However, one thing I have noticed about Palin the past few days:

SHE’S THE ONLY ONE ON FREAKIN’ MESSAGE!!!!!

Here is the Wiki definition for the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

I looks to me as if her answer dealt with the Doctrine in total, then Gibson interrupted her (with the tone that she was wrong), and said it was solely about pre-emptive action. Doesn’t he do research?

Here is how Wiki defines the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

Doesn’t Gibson do research?

NM

even though she has more executive experience than Obama. We need facts:

Size of Budget
Number of State Employees
Number of Emergency Workers
Number of Students in University System

Can anyone help with this information??

With all this talk of a possible pro choice pick, is Cohen pro choice?

On one side of withdrawals are Obama and Maliki.

On the other are Admirals Fallon and Mullen, and General Petreaus, and John McCain.

Now I understand why Maliki is on the side he is. It’s his job to promote Iraqi interests, whether they are long term regional and strategic interests, or short term internal interests (he has spent the last 3-4 months killing thousands of largely Shia fighters – eventually he would have to throw them a bone).

And I understand why the Admirals and General, have their position. They believe time lines would be bad for US strategic interests. And I know why McCain supports the Admirals and General – he believes the President should protect and promote US interests first and foremost.

What I do not understand is why Obama is promoting Iraqi interests above US interests. Which job is he running for: President, or Iraqi Prime Minister?