Bush v Obama: Some Things to Think About

Q: 1. President Bush was famous for lacking "intellectual curiosity," while President Obama has been called "the smartest guy ever to become President." Who reads more books: Bush or Obama?

A: Bush. Obama started reading a book in April and had not finished it by June, putting him on a pace of no more than ten books per year. Bush read forty to ninety-five books a year while President, not counting a new and complete reading of the Bible every year. Bush scored 1206 on his SAT, putting his IQ in the 125-130 range, smarter than 95% of the population and in the company of Lincoln, Rousseau, and Thackeray. He graduated from Yale and earned an MBA from Harvard. Obama earned a law degree from Harvard, but has not released any of his academic records. Despite what you might have heard, we know nothing of his IQ, test scores, or grades from any of the schools he attended.

Q: 2. Bush was often considered to be in the grip of Big Oil. In contrast, Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer. Which industry contributed more than five times as much as the other to politicians: the oil & gas industry, or lawyers/law firms?

A: Law firms. In the 2010 cycle so far, Lawyers/Law Firms have contributed $33,779,866 (81% to Democrats), and the Oil & Gas industry has contributed $6,293,631 (34% to Democrats). In the2008 cycle, the numbers were $233,499,989 (76% to Dems) from lawyers and $35,564,322 (23% to Dems). In all, lawyers contributed about six times more to politicians than the Oil & Gas industry.

Q: 3. Bush's Christian faith was at the core of his political identity, and he was considered to be in the grip of the "religious right," while Obama is considered more open-minded. In fact, Obama has said, "my faith is one that admits some doubt." Which one refers to Jesus more in public speeches?

A: Obama. Per Eamon Javers at Politico, "As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches -- something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings."

Q: 4. Bush was criticized for excessive federal spending and running up huge deficits. Bush's deficit in 2008 was the largest in history. In fact, President Obama said,

"It's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt ... What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place."

Whose deficit was more than triple the size of the other's: Bush's in 2008 or Obama's in 2009?

A: Obama's 2009 deficit, the largest in U.S. history. It was more than three times that of Bush's record 2008 deficit. Per the Congressional Budget Office, the 2008 deficit was $455 B, and the 2009 deficit was $1,417B. As a fraction of GDP, it was the largest deficit since 1945.

Q: 5. While Obama criticized Bush for "a doubling of the national debt," the federal debt held by the public went from 35.1% of GDP in 2000 to 40.8% of GDP in 2008 -- an increase of 16% as of fraction of GDP. What is it expected to be in 2016 under Obama's budget plan?

A: The CBO expects the debt held by the public to be 77.1% of GDP in 2016 under Obama's plan, or an increase of 89% as a fraction of GDP, and the highest level since 1950.

Q: 6. Obama criticized Bush for Guantanamo, military tribunals, wiretaps, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and "signing statements." Which one of these Bush practices has Obama ended?

A: None.

• Guantanamo is still open and probably will be into 2010, maybe longer. 
• Obama is keeping military tribunals and clandestine wiretapping programs. 
• Obama plans to keep most troops in Iraq until the summer of 2010. Even then, he is talking of keeping about 50,000 troops there (compared to about 124,000 now). The number of US troops in Afghanistan increased from 37,000 in January 2009 to 62,000 by August 2009, and Obama is expected to send over 30,000 more. Total number of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan has increased under Obama so far (from about 184,000 in January to 186,000 in September). 
• Obama has used signing statements himself.

Stay Classy America!!

So I've been quiet the last few weeks trying to process the historic election and inauguration of President Obama. But, I just can't resist the urge to speak up.
Let me make it clear-I put my country first, above party or politician. In doing so, I desperately want to see our newly elected President Obama do well for our country's sake; I have absolutely no reason not to want to see him do well. He has some tough issues to tackle and he has my support as my President.
However, the rock-star treatment that he has already received, his comparison to Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennnedy, and the almost-radical blind acceptance of this man is completely bewildering to me. He is a great orator and delivers his message of hope well. But beyond that, what has he done to receive an unprecedented amount of support? I understand that people are looking for change and looking for a leader who can usher in much-needed change. But, why do we look to one man who has yet to prove himself, to be the catalyst that will rescue us from what politicians have put us in, in the first place?
Reality check: Obama is just another 21st Century American politician who talks the talk but hasn't walked the walk. Am I missing something? Please, someone fill me in (and don't just compare him to the last President, citing some over-used CNN/MSNBC talking point; I am looking for some facts and a little intelligent analysis on WHY Obama is already being compared to the next Kennedy, Lincoln and Roosevelt). And by the way, just as it will take more than one person to get us out of this mess, it wasn't one single person who got us into this mess; blaming Bush for all our problems is just an easy cop-out. Afterall, the democratically-controlled congress undeniably has its share of dysfunction and a low approval rating.
It IS fantastic to see how far we have come in the 150 years since slavery and the 40+ years since the dawn of the civil rights movement to elect an African-American as our President. But, that in itself is not enough to justify blindly following Obama where he leads.
If the nation is to reverse its course, it will need an absolute house-cleaning in all branches of government and at all levels. . We need senators, representatives, judges, cabinet members, mayors, city councilmen-leaders at every level of government-to lead with conviction, fortitude and principle. One man, i.e. one politician, can not bring the change that Americans are looking for. We have the power to reverse course by voting in people who have integrity and keep the best interests of their citizens in mind above special interest groups, kickbacks, quid pro quo and special favors. Believe it or not, those leaders are out there.
I'm not cynical, but sincerely believe that because we are Americans, we don't need to put all our hope in one man. We are the most blessed country in the history of the world; we are extremely resilient, resourceful and thrive on challenges-that is the nature of Americans. Let's stop blaming Bush for everything that's gone wrong, stop blindly following Obama like a bunch of lost sheep and start acting to take back our country from politicians who care nothing about us.
My next point is this: Have we forgotten what grace is? At the inauguration, I was dissapointed to hear booing and yelling when George Bush was introduced. Here is a man who has served as our President for 8 years and when he is introduced to citizens he has worked so hard to protect, people have the audacity to boo him. Wow. I respect the office of the President too much and would NEVER show disrespect to a leader who has faithfully fulfilled his duty to his people. The name-calling, personal insults and outright disrespect by the media and every-day citizens, not to mention Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's disrespect of George W. Bush is APPALLING. Have we stooped so low that this is now acceptable behavior? It reminds me of a bunch of little kids who lose a baseball game and won't go shake hands with the team that beat them. We teach our kids to be good sportsmen, but we fail to demonstrate this "important" principal when it really counts. What a golden opportunity. Come on people, WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS!!!
Stay classy, America!!!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

CNN - Obama takes Shinseki for Cabinet, sources say

Obama has my approval for this choice. Shinseki is a solid pick and will represent veterans well. I hope President-elect Obama continues to make good choices for his cabinet positions.

Sent from clint's mobile device from http://www.cnn.com.

Obama takes Shinseki for Cabinet, sources say

President-elect Barack Obama will nominate retired Gen. Eric Shinseki to be secretary of Veterans Affairs, two Democratic sources said Saturday.

Obama was expected to make the formal announcement Sunday -- Pearl Harbor Day -- at a news conference in Chicago. Veterans groups appeared to support the selection.

"I am excited. I don't know him personally but this is a huge move," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

For years, Shinseki, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, has been the patron saint of Pentagon critics who say the former Army chief's sage advice was ignored in 2003, resulting in too few U.S. troops being sent to Iraq after the invasion.

Shinseki testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003 that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers would be required" to pacify the country. The comment infuriated some Bush administration officials, and he retired just a few months later.

Shinseki has never spoken publicly about his testimony, which has often been cited by critics as evidence that then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ignored the advice of one of his key generals.

But as Army chief of staff, Shinseki was not in the chain of command, and played no direct role in drawing up the war plans.

Pentagon sources say that, in fact, Shinseki never advocated higher troop levels for Iraq, in part because it was not his job to do so. And sources say that just before the invasion, when asked by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers if he agreed with the war plans, Shinseki voiced no objections.

Still, Rieckhoff said, "Shinseki is a guy who had a career putting patriotism above politics. He is a wounded veteran so he understands the plight of veterans."

He said Shinseki would have to make key connections with the veterans community, adding, "This is a big name and it shows that he (Obama) is not going to treat the Veterans Affairs secretary as a low priority."

John Rowan, president of Vietnam Veterans of America, called the reported pick an "interesting choice."

"I am satisfied with it," Rowan told CNN on Saturday, adding that the choice seems to be in the Obama transition team's pattern of "bringing in strong personalities into all the positions who aren't going to 'yes' him to death."

"When Shinseki had his disagreements with the administration, he wasn't afraid to speak up," Rowan said.

Veterans for Common Sense also weighed in, issuing a statement "strongly" supporting Shinseki.

"In February 2003, General Shinseki honestly and correctly assessed our nation's military needs before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003," the statement said. "This same level of candor and honesty will serve President-elect Obama well so he can quickly and accurately identify VA's many challenges and then implement responsible solutions that take into consideration our veterans' needs and concerns."

Like Obama, Shinseki was born in Hawaii. He was the first Asian-American to reach the top spot in the U.S. Army.

When a gallery to honor Shinseki was opened at the U.S. Army Museum of Hawaii in 2006, Shinseki was humble while addressing the audience.

"I asked my Grandma Shinseki what I should say before I came here," he said at the time. "She told me, 'tell them you come from a good family ... and tell them you're a good American soldier.' "

Before he took over the Army's top post in November 1998, Shinseki spent his career with U.S. armored forces.

He served two combat tours in Vietnam and commanded the Army's 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas.

He also served as commander of Army forces in Europe and as chief of NATO's SFOR peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Incrementalism

"The method of change by which many policy changes are enacted over time in order to create a larger broad based policy change."

In 2007 the City of Dallas implemented a genius plan called SafeLight. Its goal was to reduce the number of traffic accidents at busy intersections by photographing the violator's license plate as they drive through a red light. According to the SafeLight website, an officer then analyzes the images to determine if a violation actually occurred. While its intentions are good, the program is yet another example of how we are moving toward a fascist-like state not unlike the government in the book "1984" by George Orwell. We are incrementally developing programs at the city, state and federal level that encroaches on our right to privacy and hurts those its trying to protect.

Ironically, I support the government doing all it can to track and develop information on persons of interest right here in the U.S. through phone call monitoring, email monitoring, HUMINT and any other "sources and methods" that will make their job of protecting our national security easier, especially when potential terrorist activities are involved.

The difference is the fact that so much time, energy and my tax money are wasted on trying to catch people making simple traffic violations. Instead of penalizing people that run red lights or occassionally speed, who are generally solid American citizens who otherwise contribute to society, why not focus more energy on cleaning up our streets from gangs, corruption, drugs, prostitution, indiscriminate killings, rape and terrorist activity?

So, obviously I am guilty of receiving one of these violations from Big Brother. Guilty as sin-sent to my mail today for an October 5th violation, there was a picture of my license plate along with the time, location and even the current weather at the intersection. The cost to me-$75. I went to the website to begrudgingly pay the fine only to find out I've been tagged for ANOTHER ticket at the exact same location-this time on November 4th-the notice for this one has yet to be mailed to me.

When there is a cost associated to my actions I'll accept responsibilty and the consequences and move on. I rarely make the same mistake twice; problem is, the City of Dallas doesn't even give me a chance to learn from my first mistake, before I'm tagged for the EXACT same thing a second time!

Again, I play by the rules, pay my taxes and always strive to do the right thing, but I'm human. This SafeLight program completey removes the human element and systematically incriminates people without asking questions. If an officer had pulled me over on the second occurence, he would have seen that I had yet to be notified of the first occurence and probably would have let me go, but tell me to be more careful. If the officer looked at my driving record, he would have seen that I have no prior tickets (knock on wood) and have never even been involved in an accident (knock, knock on wood!!). Not that it excuses my violations, but before penalizing me for a second one, without even knowing about the first one, some consideration should be made of the circumstances surrounding my second citation-something the SafeLight program is clearly incapable of.

Its a sad day when a citizen feels like his voice is lost in a system that majors in the minors and subsequently hurts those they are trying to protect. If we aren't careful, we are incrementally approaching a police-state that values states rights more than the rights of its people. Just another example of how big government ultimately hurts those it is trying to help.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Trying to Stay Positive

I really am trying my hardest to stay out of depression since Obama won the election. I'm not surprised at the results, however let me remind you that 56 million other Americans share my sentiments: this is a fact that the mainstream media has failed to highlight. Yes Obama won; however he did not sweep the popular vote-the media paints him as an overwhelmingly popular pick for President, yet there are a huge percentage of Americans who voted to keep Obama out of office..
The one good thing that comes from Obama's election, is that within four years we will see him for who he really is-full of lies, empty promises and questionable American values. At the end of four years, many Americans who have put so much hope in this one man will be severely dissapointed and disillusioned with our political process. Until then, unfortunately we will all have to suffer the consequences of electing Obama as the leader of the free world-and we are in for a ride, especially with a severe recession at hand.
I am going to do everything I can to keep an open mind, support my president with all of his tough decisions and remain positive. But those who voted for Obama and are reading this-don't say we didn't warn you. The price of ignorance could lead to many shattered hopes and dreams for millions of Americans and the change Obama brings could alter the America we all know and love.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T