Landmines to Avoid in the Obama Administration

• Raising Taxes...Any Taxes: In light of the economic downturn, any action that would lead to less money in American pockets, which would lead to less money in the market, would be a critical mistake the country cannot afford right. This includes the capital gains tax, or any other taxes aimed at corporate executives. Any tax levied on that end will result in an increase in prices, cuts in labor wages and benefits, or even more layoffs. Every cost doled out by lawmakers always finds its way to the consumer, which is the last thing the market needs.

• Overall Increase in Domestic Spending: Leftist members of Congress are practically foaming at the mouth with thoughts of a unified Democratic government. With Bush out of the way, big spenders like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and David Obey (D-WI) think they will finally have their chance to provide significant increases to the areas that will benefit their "constituents." After years of accusing Bush of being the most fiscally irresponsible President, these geniuses want to turn around and start spending on all the areas they promised voters they would work on back in 2006. How do they plan to pay for it? Tax increases. See the previous point for why this is a bad idea.

• Immediate Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq: To be honest, I know Obama is not so naive to believe he can just yank the troops out in a few months. Despite what Democrats have promised worried loved one, they know the troops can;t just pack up and leave. However, for the ever ridiculous legislators like Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and John Murtha (D-PA), there will undoubtedly be repeated calls for an immediate withdrawal. If this were to go through, what little credibility the U.S. still has in the international community would fly right out the window. While I still believe Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, I also acknowledge the U.S.'s hand in the current train wreck that Iraq has become. If we were to simply pull out and leave them to their own devices, without the slightest mention of a well-thought, carefully planned transition, any further blood shed would still be on our hands.

• Reducing the Size of the Military: I want America out of Iraq just as much as most others, though my reasons are different. Spending in Iraq is what led to the increase in deficit spending, and the sooner we end it, the sooner we can stop send $100 billion over there annually. Unlike President-elect Obama, who is banking on a near 100% "peace dividend," I realize that at best, we can hope for maybe a $50 billion dividend from ending U.S. involvement in Iraq. But $50 billion is better than nothing. We just have to make sure that in the process, we don't forget the returning soldiers. Considering the amount of money that nearly 50% of the Department of Defense's Budget is spent on personnel, the only way to try and achieve a 100% peace dividend would be to bring U.S. military personnel levels back down to the 2001 numbers. At a time when jobs are being cut on a daily basis, unemployment would sky rocket with the infusion of forcibly retired veterans entering the workforce. They went over there and bled for us, I think we owe them more than that.

Latest Bailout Good for Citigroup, Bad for the Country

Regulators produced two sweeping plans to bail out banks in the last couple of months. And both times, stocks bounced up but dropped quickly because investors remained skeptical. The latest plan, which emerged Sunday night, involves the government’s backstopping a portfolio of assets for Citigroup, the financial conglomerate whose stock lost more than half of its value last week. Shares in other banks, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, also lost significant ground. The question, as a new week begins, is whether this plan will produce lasting effects not only for Citigroup but also for the broader stock market.

NYT Article

If at first you don't succeed, why try again? Legislators are looking for that one magic pill that will bring the economy back to life. The problem is, that pill doesn't exists. Even if it did, I am sure it would not be FDA approved. Seriously, how many times will Congress stick its nose into the market, hoping to cure all that ails it, only to find that what they do is, at best, meaningless (and at worst, ultimately detrimental). After announcing the latest bailout for Citigroup, the DOW has jumped up about 300 points this morning. However, as noted above, stocks jumped the last few times, and then went right back down the drain.

Congress needs to learn that there may be nothing it can do to bring the economy back to where it was, at least not right away. The market moves in cycles, just like the weather. Right not, the weather is bad. But rather than try to control the weather, we should just find someplace warm and dry and ride out the storm, planning on what we want to do when the weather is better. Congress should be focusing on ways it can help prepare the nation for better times, like investing in infrastructure and education and looking into possible changes in the tax code.

Congress already passed an "economic stimulus" package as well as a $750 billion bailout bill. Despite both of these bill, the economy has shown no signs of immediate improvement, as Congressional leaders were foolishly hoping it would. The sheer economic ignorance that lawmakers have displayed is terrifying. As a result of their lack of expertise, the U.S. Government is now billion of dollars poorer and no closer to economic recovery that before. It's true that President Bush supported the bailout efforts, but let's face it, President Bush has been a huge disappointment to true conservatives, especially in how high he has allowed the federal deficit to go. Tax cuts are great, but only if they are accompanied by a decrease in spending. Econ 101: If you decrease revenue, you need to decrease outlays. Instead, Bush allowed the continued increase or level spending on domestic affairs, and a sever increase in military spending due to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can only hope that President-elect Obama, despite his proclivities, will implement a more intelligent fiscal policy. Oddly enough, I am slightly pleased to see the transition team looking to many former members of the Clinton Administration for high ranking positions in the new Administration. Say what you want about Clinton, he knew enough to ride Regan's economic wave for all it was worth, especially before the Dot.com bubble burst. I am hoping that, in light of the economic times, and staggering U.S. debt, President-elect Obama will wisely back away from his ridiculous campaign promises, and focus on fiscal responsibility. This means renewing the 2001-2003 tax cuts, accompanied by a decrease in federal spending. It is also my sincerest hope that Obama can take up efforts abandoned by the Bush Administration to reform entitlement spending.

Brief Post-Election Thoughts

So, I know I have been fairly silent over the last two months, but iis the price I pay for working full time and going to law school. However, I would like to share a few post-election thoughts.

First of all, the election went the way I thought it would, though Obama did win a few more states than I originally predicted. What surprised me was how poor Republicans did in the Senate. Despite his troubles, I honestly believed Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) would get the 50.1% he needed to avoid a December run-off. I also thought Gordon Smith (R-OR) would win in Oregon, and I didn't think Norm Coleman (R-MN) would such a difficult time with Al Franken in Minnesota, but I guess that is because I was unable to take Franken seriously.

Despite his recent conviction on seven counts of making false statements, I expected Ted Stevens (R-AK) to keep his seat, just long enough for the Senate Ethics Committee to expel him from office. Three of these races remain undecided, but I am hoping at least one Republicans holds on, so the Democratic majority does not get the 60 votes necessary to block filibusters. With increased majorities, and control of the White House, if the Senate Republicans cannot filibuster, then the Democrats will be in complete, unopposed control.

While I did not vote for President-elect Obama, he won. As such, once he takes his oath of office, he will be my President. I do not take that distinction lightly. While I may not believe he is the best man for the job, he is going to be leading my country, and he has my support. I pray that he does a great job and that he leads our country through the tough times ahead. I plan to follow this up with a few thoughts on the new Congress and what I expect to come out of the new unified government, but with finals just around the corner, I cannot guarantee I will have time.

A Day to Remeber, Not to Debate

"On a day when buildings fell, heroes rose," Bush said. "... One of the worst days in America's history saw some of the bravest acts in America's history."

A Nation Remembers

As the nation remembers the events of 9/11, the candidates are appearing tonight at a forum in New York. Now, they will both appear together at Ground Zero, which is the exact kind of show of solidarity the candidates should show on a day like today. As for the rest of this evening's activities, I think today should be a day for honoring fallen heroes and victims, not a day for more partisan politics.

Family Values

In her two years as governor of Alaska, and especially in the four months since her son was born with Down syndrome, Sarah Palin has been portrayed as the very model of a working mother: She answers her BlackBerry while pumping breast milk for her infant; keeps a playpen by her desk; and manages a state while cooking caribou hot dogs for her family. But some people, looking at that tableau, wonder whether it is possible to perform that juggling act on the highest wire of all, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Those questions came into higher relief on Monday as Gov. Palin, just days after she was introduced as the Republican vice-presidential pick, disclosed that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is about five months pregnant. She said Bristol plans to keep the baby and marry the father.

WSJ Article

Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. McCain made a mistake choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. By trying to find a woman to appeal to Hilary supporters, McCain chose a candidate with too many holes in her public face. Her youth and inexperience will work against those same arguments McCain's campaign has made against Sen. Obama. The current investigation into Palin's alleged abuse of power, by trying to have her state trooper ex-brother in law fired, works against her credibility. Now, the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and may possibly marry the 18 year old father is being used to damage her belief family values. Regardless of how good of a person she may be, there are just too many problems for the McCain campaign to have picked her at this juncture.

Having said that, let me come out and say that I am appalled at the way the situation with her daughter is being handled, by both the media and the Democrats. For those families that are not in the public eye, such an event would be kept as quiet as possible, until the family was forced to acknowledge the pregnancy amongst their community. For a politician, especially one running for Vice President of the United States, every family matter becomes a matter of public record. The McCain campaign did not release the news until after they announced Palin as the VP candidate. However, to think that the campaign was unaware of the pregnancy is both naive and foolish. Any campaign consultant worth anything would know that it would be impossible to hide something of this nature. As such, McCain went ahead and chose Palin. That means he either believes in her ability to carry out her duties as VP, or that he believes her appeal to women will outweigh all the points against her, depending on how cynical you are.

Democrats are using Bristol's condition to try and paint Palin as a hypocrite who claims to support family values, but did not bother to instill such values in her daughter. This offends me on a deep level. Palin's attackers claim that because her daughter made a mistake, that she is a failure as a daughter, and Palin is a failure as a mother. I find this view repugnant. Bristol made a mistake. There is no way around that. She is young, still considered a minor in the eye of the law, and she engaged in sexual acts outside the bond of marriage, producing an unwanted pregnancy. However, not all mistakes end badly.

My older bother has a daughter, despite the fact that he has never been married. Granted, he was 23 when she was born, legally an adult, but age is only one factor in this debate. Despite the circumstance surround the birth of my niece, she has been nothing but a blessing to my family. My mother did not take the news well when my brother confessed that he had fathered a child. I am sure part of her felt that she failed in her parental duties. My parents raised their children in the church, working to instill Christian values in all of us. Obviously, my bother made some mistakes on his way to becoming a man. However, he is now raising the child, with the help of my parents and my sister. He works a job he does not particularly enjoy, so he can provide for his little girl, and still have time to spend with her each day when she gets home from school. This is evidence that those vary same values my mother worked to instill in our lives is very present in my brother. He owned up to his mistake, and is now working to raise a child as a single parent, hoping to instill those same Christian values in his daughter that our mother instilled in us.

My mother worked hard to raise her children right, teaching us to be God-fearing, upright American citizens. In the end, all a parent can do is teach their children how to live, and hope those lessons guide them through life. It was my brother's choices that led to my niece being born, not my mother's. Now, as the cycle continues, my bother is trying to teach his daughter how to live, knowing she will grow up to make her own choices along the way. Does this mean my mother or my brother do not support traditional family values? No, it means they believe in those values, which include the value of forgiveness. Human beings are not perfect. We are prone to make mistakes. But part of the blessed gift we receive from On High is the gift of forgiveness, for those who earnestly seek it. I am sure Bristol has asked for such forgiveness, and for her part, I am sure Gov. Palin has granted it.

So, before Obama supporters and the media offer up the Palin family for public sacrifice, maybe they should rethink their own values, and what it means to be human. That is just my opinion.

Is Biden a Wise Choice?

The first national poll conducted after Barack Obama publicly named Joe Biden as his running mate suggests that the battle for the presidency between the Illinois senator and John McCain is all tied up.

CNN Article

Friday night, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)as his running mate for the Presidential election. In the most recent polls since this announcement, It appears Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are now in a dead heat for the Presidency. Now, there is no conclusive way to say that Biden is the cause of this closing of the gap, but it would be awfully naive to believe he had nothing to do with it.

Obama chose biden, despite the 28% of registered democrats who wanted him to chose Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Recent polls have shown that 1-in-5 of Clinton supporters are voting for McCain over Obama. Choosing Biden only further ostracizes this same group of voters. Furthermore, Biden has failed multiple times to even get the nomination for the White House. He first ran in 1988, but withdrew after accusations of plagiarizing a speech. He has been in the senate for 36 years, so he is very popular with the people of Delaware, but that is not going to help on a national scale. Time will tell.

Spirituality is Not a Political Commodity

"I also believe that talking too much about one's faith and religion, in my view, is something between me and God." - John McCain


CNN Article

Over the weekend, mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, made famous by his best selling book, "Purpose Driven Life," held a forum with the two Presidential candidates. This forum is one of the first times Republican Candidate John McCain discussed his faith in detail. Often one to deflect the question or change the subject (evident in the above quote), McCain very clearly spelled out his spiritual status when he told forum attendees that he is, "saved and forgiven."

This election marks one of the first times that evangelical Christian voters are considered a battleground between Republicans and Democrats. The media has been overwhelmingly interested in how young evangelicals may be leaving their GOP base to side with Democrats on a number of social justice and environmental issues. Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, addresses the way that the media has failed to accurately report this supposed shit, noting that these are topics that Christians have shown interest in for years (Heritage Foundation Article).

Sen. Obama has become such a popular candidate among his fellow party members because of his constant reference to his faith and to scripture. Democratic strategists are hoping that he can pull many young evangelicals away from the GOP. While I certainly do not fault Sen. Obama for speaking his faith, I do take issue with those politicians who use their faith as a political selling point. While a number of Republican strategists may have done so with President Bush, which I do not condone, the President himself has only ever mentioned his faith in personal ways and how his beliefs affect his decisions. As such, my problem is with Obama's handlers, not Obama himself (as of yet). Let me again point out that Republicans are often just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to this.

I believe that all people, regardless of their political aspirations, should consider their beliefs when making any worthwhile decisions. I support those candidates that not only vote their conscience, but also factor in their spirituality. What I do not condone is political mercenaries who use a person's spiritual beliefs as a way to sell their candidate to the masses. You should not have to point out that this candidate is religious, or has views that coincide with certain religious subgroups. You should simply lay out your political views and your campaign platform, and rely individuals to decide if they agree with you or not. God is not a politician, and He is not selling point for your political aspirations. Follow Him, run your race, and see where it takes you.

Pelosi Threatens Free Thinking Party Members

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted Sen. Joe Lieberman on Wednesday for making what she called "totally irresponsible" remarks about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and warned that the Senate might retaliate by revoking Lieberman's committee chairmanship.

SF Gate Article

I am glad to see that individuality and free thinking are so well embraced by the Democratic Party Leaders.

Candidates Take Different Routes to Same Conclusion on Georgia

Obama later Monday read a statement on camera in which he seemed to come closer to McCain's position, saying Russia's invasion was a "turning point" in its relationship with the West.

CNN Article

As of now, both Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) have pit themselves against Russia over the current hostilities in Georgia. Both Presidential Candidates place the blame for the conflict squarely on Russia's shoulders. However, Sen. McCain was a little quicker in getting to that point.

Just to bring you up to speed, Russian forces invaded Georgia last Friday, after Georgian military forces shot down two Russian military jets. Georgian officials claim the Russian aircraft were bombing Georgian forces in South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that wants to secede from Georgia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the current head of the European Union, claims that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have negotiated a "cease fire" (though Georgia says the violence continues) but not an absolute end to the conflict. Russian forces still occupy territory in Georgia.

"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," McCain said in a statement to reporters shortly after his campaign plane landed in Iowa on Friday. From the start, McCain was condemning Russia for entering Georgian territory. McCain is known for his biased views against Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, often referring to Putin's KGB roots. While McCain was quick to condemn Russia, Obama was a bit more cautious.

"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said on Friday. The Junior Senator from Illinois is currently vacationing with his family in Hawaii, though his campaign claims he is keeping abreast of the situation. While he called for a end to the violence, he did not go so far as to place any blame on Russia...at first. After speaking with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, Obama changed his tone, but continued to keep a take a peace oriented approach.

"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

So the question here, is who had the best reaction? McCain immediately condemned Russia, now considered by most of the international community as the unwarranted aggressor. Obama refrained from condemning either country until he had all the facts, finally speaking against Russia on Monday. To a certain extent, both candidates reacted in the proper manner.

Obama chose not to jump to conclusions until he had more information (which might have been sooner if he were not on vacation). Taking time to gather the facts is certainly an admirable quality. However, there are certain times when a national leader must be seen as decisive and steadfast. McCain showed himself to be just that, basing his stance off of initial reports, as well as his considerable experience in foreign affairs.

At the same time, if further investigation had shown that Georgian military forces were committing atrocities in South Ossetia, then McCain would have looked like a trigger happy cowboy. However, McCain is an intelligent man (his campaign flops notwithstanding) with a great deal of experience in international matters. He made an initial read of the situation, and took a stand, showing his leadership skills and his decisive nature.

In the end, this is a matter for individual voters to decide, but McCain's response showed him to be the intelligent, confident leader, while Obama seemed to be indecisive and unsure what side to take. It could be for a lack of experience, or it could be a charachter flaw. Of course, this is just one man's opinion.

McCain Better Fit For Teachers Unions?

The top goal of both teachers’ unions is driving a stake into the federal No Child Left Behind Act. That stake, however, is far more likely to get pounded in by John McCain than by Barack Obama, who won the overwhelming endorsement of both unions.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/08/45read.h27.html

Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer for USA Today, makes a fairly novel point in that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Senator Obama for President, despite the fact that McCain may actually serve their interests on No Child Left Behind better than Barack. Whitmire looks at Obama's speeches on NCLB, noting that he does not actually address anything in the law, instead relying on useless rhetoric to gain support from the leftist unions.

When you break down the issues, McCain and Obama are both useless in the areas of federal education spending, school choice, and performance pay for teachers. While McCain would not raise spending, the Democratically controlled Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President. On school choice, there are too few optimal choices for public school swapping, leaving Charter Schools as the only viable option. Obama is a strong supporter of charter schools, so that would put him at odds with the unions, along with McCain. Both candidates have come out in favor of performance pay for teachers, so that just leaves NCLB.

This is just another case of political entities (which is all the NEA and AFT are) following the status quo of supporting a Democrat, regardless of his policies.

Candidates' Views on Education

Although both Obama and McCain have criticized the No Child Left Behind Act, neither proposes scrapping it altogether. While Obama regularly bashes the landmark education law for being underfunded, he is not planning to drop the measure's reliance on standardized tests, which is its most controversial provision.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93004032

Education often gets overlooked in the polls. NPR has a very good layout for each candidate's views on a variety of education issues. I recommend reading through it.

Gas Prices...What Can Be Done?

The economics of extracting resources is quite simple and intuitive. If you own property that has oil in the ground, then you have to decide how rapidly you wish to deplete your resource. If prices are low today, and you expect them to be much higher in the future, then you will hold off pumping a lot.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28383,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

With rising gas prices listed as the number one concern in the upcoming election, voters need to educate themselves about their options for attempting to lower fuel costs. While I personally agree with many Democrats that the U.S. needs to look into alternative fuel sources, that is not a solution to the current problem. The oil is eventually going to run out. At that time, we will need proven alternative methods in practice. For now, however, we should not let planning for the future blind us to our current situation.

The U.S. Department of the Interior claims that there are about 86 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the nation's outer continental shelf. That is roughly ten times our annual consumption of 7.5 billion barrels per year. Democrats argue that oil discoveries can't affect the current high price, because any newly discovered reserves take so long to deliver.

However, a recent study by economists Param Silvapulle and Imad Moosa of Monash University in Australia found strong evidence of what is called bidirectional causality. Future prices and spot prices are inextricably linked. This apparently an already widely known truth among economists, as noted in the quote above, that knowledge of prices in the future will certainly effect actions and prices today. So, while I am happy to learn that most economists understand the probable effects 86 billion barrels of oil will have on the current market, voters seem more then willing to remain blissfully ignorant.

Back...for a while anyway

So, you may notice that I have three posts in the last week, after more than a year of being absent from here. Well, a mixture of work, blogging apathy, and getting through my first year of law school led me to remain idle in my blogging. So, I am back now, though who can tell how long this will last. If it does, I hope you stay with me for the duration, thanks.

Media Again Blasts McCain

In the world of politics, it used to be a hard-and-fast rule: "Politics ends at the water's edge" — the old Washington practice that when politicians used to travel abroad, their political opponents often refrained from criticism, at least with regards to foreign policy

But as Barack Obama continues his trip throughout the Middle East, John McCain sharply criticized the Illinois senator Monday morning over his initial opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and his short resume in dealing with foreign affairs.

I was unaware that campaigning is supposed to stop when one candidate is out of the country. Considering that there is a small army of reporters following Obama around, do you think he is refraining from comparing and contrasting his foreign policy with John McCain's? But McCain is not supposed to say anything about Obama's foreign policy while Barack is abroad? Sorry, but Obama would not even be on this trip if he were not running for President. And the small brigade of reporters tagging along only further points to this being a political trip. As such, McCain should not be expected to sit and take it without issuing his own statements. One more bit of evidence of who the media is supporting this election year. Objectivity be damned, I guess.

American Brewing Gaint Falters

As a native of the St. Louis metro area, people have been asking me what I think of the recent “merger” of Anheuser-Busch, the largest American brewing company, and InBev, a Belgian brewer. The fact is, I have two conflicting opinions. As a son of the St. Louis metro area, I am saddened by the fact that the brewing company that is the heart and soul of that region of the country will be owned by a foreign entity. The pride that I always felt knowing the number one American brewer had its head quarters in my neck of the woods is going to be greatly diminished. This is how my heart feels about this merger. My head, however, has a better appreciation for the work and planning that went into this deal.

Keep in mind, I certainly do not have all of the details of this transaction, and I am certain even the press is not fully aware of everything going on behind the scenes. However, as I understand it, the only real loss here will be an emotional loss similar to the feeling I have already expressed. First, let’s look at what is actually transpiring, assuming the share holders and anti-trust officials approve the deal. The press is referring to this as a merger of two brewing companies. A merger is a statutory combination of two or more corporations by the transfer of the properties to one surviving corporation. In this case, the surviving corporation is InBev, though many aspects of Anheuser-Busch are likely to survive the merger.

The new company, currently branded as Anheuser-Busch InBev, will effectively become the largest brewing company in the world. Anheuser-Busch already accounts for 48% of the American market, and InBev will provide additional distribution through all of Europe and elsewhere. InBev and Anheuser-Busch already had various partnerships before this deal. InBev was the largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in Canada, I believe. So, in the end, it comes down to assessing the actual changes that will take place.

InBev has stated their intention to keep all twelve of the Anheuser-Busch breweries operating in the United States, and to keep their North American headquarters in St. Louis. Now, Anheuser-Busch was already planning to eliminate about 1200 jobs, mainly by offering early retirement and not filling open positions. Aside from this, InBev has not released any plans to layoff workers in the United States. Chances are, these layoffs will come sometime in the next year or so, but that may have happened regardless of who owned the company, that’s just business. Meanwhile, August Busch IV will maintain a position on the board of directors, but will not hold any executive position in the new company. While it is sad that a Busch will not be running this company, that is just the way business goes sometimes.

There are a lot of people out there who are trying to decide if they will continue to drink Anheuser-Busch products, now that it is no longer an American owned company. I find a slight flaw in this logic, as it now stands, since the beer is still going to be brewed in the United States. However, I am also the kind of person that does not base my consumer decisions on politics or other issues. If I like a product, I will buy it. Now, I grew up in an area that is greatly influenced by Anheuser-Busch products, which is why I buy their products. Personally, I do not drink much anymore, but when I do, rest assured that 75% of the time, it will be an Anheuser-Busch beverage.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/14/anheuser.inbev.ap/index.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merger

"Objective" Media Strikes Again

The three broadcast network newscasts, which have 20 million viewers combined, spent about 114 minutes covering Obama since June, compared to 48 minutes for McCain. Obama has been on the cover of Time and Newsweek magazines 12 times in the last 3 years, compared with 5 for McCain. And in the last few weeks, Obama has also landed on the cover of Rolling Stone and US Weekly, along with interview of his family by “Access Hollywood.”

Cafferty File

I am glad to see the "liberal bias" in the media no longer exists. This is yet another case of the media trying to generate the news, rather than report it. Kevin Wuzzardo, an ABC News Anchor in Wilmington, North Carolina, has a more detailed post on this topic in his blog, which can be found here.