Obama and "born alive" babies

I posted this to a message board on October 9, 2008:

FactCheck has an article defending Obama's view on abortion.

At the misnamed Christ Hospital in Illinois, babies that survived abortion were left to die.

If the previous Illinois bill protected these babies, then why was it necessary for another bill?  Obama said his objection was that it would lead to banning abortions, and yet he voted against a bill that included a provision that it would not affect other abortions.

Obama said: "Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this were a child, this would be an anti-abortion statute."

What is his definition of a child? The baby is outside of the womb and still alive! I read a comment by someone that said: Why is it illegal for a woman to kill her child, but it is legal if it is still inside of the womb? The left is also ambiguous on what is considered a right.

Some Obama supporters had the gall to launch a pro-life website.

NARAL rated him 100% from 2005 to 2007.

Are school vouchers financially sound?

I posted this to a message board on September 19, 2008:

Last year Utah voters rejected vouchers with 62% opposed and no county had a majority of support. I voted against it. I know some Republicans were surprised by the result, but Utah is unique with more than just religion. My main objection to it was that I did not see why the state should pay for it. I read an editorial along the same lines talking about the cost. Students would have been given between $500 to $3000.

If you opt out of the public school system I think you should opt out of the public funds as well. Isn't the point of going to a private school to get government out of education?

Another part of the financial side is that the public schools would still need to provide supplies and teachers and the savings probably wouldn't be significant, so I wondered if taxes would have to be increased to pay for the vouchers. Utah is very efficient with education dollars. We give our students a very low amount but this tends to yield high results. I enjoyed the public school experience and I think teachers here are more conservative than elsewhere so we don't have to deal with the political garbage as often.

If you can afford private school and for whatever reason such as religious views or better education want to send your kids to one, then I support your decision. When I have kids I will definitely look into the private area if I can afford to in the hopes of giving my kids a more specialized and advanced education.

Will McCain's economic policies cost more?

I posted this to a message board on September 25, 2008:

The Tax Policy Center did an analysis (PDF) of the candidates and concluded that Obama's economic plan is better. I am doubtful of the results. I was not able to find a similar analysis for the 2004 election to check their accuracy. The Laffer Curve says that taxes can reach a maximum level and after that they start to hurt revenue and it seems like they ignore it and just assume that all tax cuts are bad. The Washington Post has an article saying that overall income taxes would drop a lot more under McCain.

Obama wants to raise capital gains to 20%, but McCain wants to leave it at 15%. McCain plans to lower the corporate tax rate, Obama wants to leave it at 35%. McCain wants to lower the estate tax and raise the exemptions, Obama wants to leave it at current levels. Although it only impacts a couple thousand businesses. Obama said the analysis doesn't take Iraq into consideration, I'm not sure of his military budget plans, but I think he wants a bigger presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan and you can't rule out political and economic ramifications of an early pull out from Iraq. Obama also wants the government to pay for transportation infrastructure and to spend more in Africa to fight aids and poverty. Plus you have his universal healthcare plan. I'm not sure what their different approaches are to energy and global warming, but Obama wants to spend a lot on alternative energy and impose a tax on oil profits.

The CBO has historal budget data. The one part I didn't understand is the public debt category, because I thought our national debt was about double what they said. During the first seven years of President Clinton's term, the public debt increased by 632.7 billion and for the first seven years of President Bush's term the debt increased by 1.6253 Trillion. For Clinton during that same period revenues averaged 1.478 Trillion while for Bush they averaged 2.091 Trillion. I don't know if they take inflation into account, but it seems that Bush's tax cuts have had a huge impact by raising revenues about 41.5% and showing that our tax rates were too high.

At that time,  I sent a message to Greg Mankiw and he said he would consider this issue in a future blog post, but I'm not sure if he ever did.

The Media Play the Race Card on Obama

Jonah Goldberg wrote this article on September 24, 2008:

The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn't leading in polls by a wide margin "doesn't make sense ... unless it's race," says CNN's Jack Cafferty.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the "color of his skin," in an article subtitled "Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him."

Many journalists are so convinced that racism is the only possible explanation for an Obama loss that they are beginning to see any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to "viciously exacerbate" America's "race-fueled angst," in the words of one New York magazine writer.

For example, a McCain ad (citing the Washington Post) noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time's Karen Tumulty proclaims that because Raines is black, McCain is “playing the race card.”

Gallup: Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive

On September 12, 2008 Gallup had an article about a recent poll:

A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.

In response to the article, I wrote the following comment on a message board on September 15, 2008:

I  heard about this too and I am excited! My gut reaction was that the McCain/Palin ticket would encourage more people to consider Republicans for Congress. This is what I wrote to my uncle recently before I knew about this poll: "I don't understand why the Democrats are still considered popular and likely to gain congressional seats. Congress has a 9% approval rating which is a record low; the President is 3 or 4 times higher than that. A majority of people want offshore drilling and the top leaders of the Democrats keep delaying it. The surge has been a huge success and a lot of Democrats refuse to acknowledge it. Nancy Pelosi voted down a proposal to delay their vacation and she is using the time to promote her book which has been a huge failure. It seems like they haven't accomplished anything and they just waste their time on fluff issues and hearings. One guy was debating whether to legalize marijuana and they issued a statement apologizing for slavery." 

Does anyone have specific numbers for Pelosi? I know Sheehan wants to run against her. I heard a talk radio host say it was 18% and the Republicans should start running ads saying 80 vs 18.

I also posted a link, but it doesn't work anymore:

I  found some encouraging information from an Rasmussen article about three weeks ago:

Indicative of the low opinion most voters have of Congress were the findings in another survey earlier this week of members of the leadership's own party. Just 37% of Democrats say they have a favorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while 51% have an unfavorable view of her. One-quarter (25%) of Democrats rate their view of the San Francisco Democrat as Very Favorable, but 14% see her in a Very Unfavorable light.

The news is even worse for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is viewed favorably by 22% of Democrats and unfavorably by 41%. Six percent (6%) of Democrats have a Very Favorable view of the Nevada senator, but 8% regard him Very Unfavorably.