Liberty and Justice for All!

Since others are jumping in with their guesses, here are my predictions.

This is what I feel is the absolute maximum number of votes that Barack Obama can get.

However, this is the map that I predict will win Obama the election.

I also predict that Bill Jefferson will defeat Helena Moreno and move on to the general election. Personally, I have some real problems with voting with Helena Moreno (namely her acceptance of the endorsement of the R.D.O.). However, I just cannot bring myself to “vote for the crook”.

Finally, I predict that Landrieu will defeat Kennedy for the Senate seat but that the Democrats will only manage to get 59 seats (though I hope I am wrong and we manage 60).

Update: I think we may have 60 in the bag, thanks to Chambliss refering to black voters as “the other folks” who are voting. Good job Saxby. Way to show your true colors.

The numbers are astounding and these are current as of Monday at 6:30 (people still voted after 6:30 because of long lines).

Democrats lead Republicans in early voting by a nearly 2 to 1 margin and account for nearly 60% of the early voters.

If McCain has any weakness in Louisiana (I am not saying he has one, but if he does) it has to be the fact that Democrats have a much better get out the vote machine so far. If this keeps up through tomorrow (the end of early voting) then election day may be very interesting.

And even if this doesn’t help Obama win Louisiana, it has to help Mary Landrieu (who just nabbed another big Republican endorsement in Dave Treen).

First: Some background reading (and listening).
Barack Obama came under fire from the so called “liberal media” for making supposedly misleading statements about John McCain’s stance on embryonic stem cell research. The “Fact Check Desk” over at ABCNEWS.com tells us where that Obama’s ad is misleading for saying:

John McCain doesn’t understand that medical research benefiting millions shouldn’t be held hostage by the political views of a few

They also claim that the Obama ad is misleading because it makes the assertion that McCain currently opposes embryonic stem cell research. Other sites also criticize Obama for saying that McCain’s stance is more strict than President Bush’s stance.

So let’s look at McCain’s history and why Barack Obama and his campaign might say such a thing. Because when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, John McCain has flipped and flopped more times than the fish at the end of Epic.

Before 2001, John McCain opposed embryonic Stem Cell research.  As it is stated in the article, in February of 2000 McCain and 20 other Republican Senators wrote into the National Institutes of Health to request that they ban students from using embryos in their research.

However, in 2001 John McCain flipped and went on Meet the Press and asserted a change in his point of view and had since voted several times (as recently as 2007) in support of the research. This is why the “fact check desk” asserts that the Obama ad is misleading. But is it?

Because McCain has since flopped and on his campaign website it clearly states:

 As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

So let’s look at this more closely. In February of 2000 (do I need to remind everyone what McCain was doing in February of 2000) McCain comes out in opposition to the research. Now, during another presidential election, he is again coming out in opposition to the research. In between he did cast votes in support of the research. So who is the real John McCain? It is impossible to tell, because he is spending much of his time flipping and flopping in order to get support.

All we can do is look at what McCain says about his stance today at this very moment. That stance would prohibit federal funds from being spent on any research on embryos. President Bush restricted funding from stem cell lines coming from new embryos, but allowed funding for stem cell research on existing lines. From the wording on McCain’s own campaign literature, he would not allow funding on any stem cell lines (existing or not). So it is absolutely clear that McCain’s stance on his website is in full opposition to the research and that opposition is, in fact, stricter than President Bush (as Obama correctly stated).

It seems like those at the “fact check” desk need to do a bit more fact checking.

Initially posted at my Brack Obama for President blog.

Before I go into the plans of both candidates, let look at the facts of our healthcare system today.

Fact 1: There are over 40 million people in this country that are uninsured.

Fact 2: Those people allow their health problems get to a point where they need to go to the emergency room for care.

Fact 3: Hospitals cannot turn away people in an emergency.

Fact 4: It is generally cheaper to treat a condition early than late, making preventive care much cheaper than emergency care.

Fact 5: Hospitals, not wanting to take a loss, will pass on the costs of unpaid emergency care to those who can afford to pay, making the cost of healthcare rise.

And we need to go over one little fact that Republicans like to ignore. Barack Obama is not proposing one government run healthcare system!

Now, that being said, it is obvious that we currently pay for the healthcare of those who are uninsured because the costs associated with their emergency care are passed on to us in the form of higher insurance premiums. So let’s see how the candidates deal with that issue as well as their other ideas.

Barack Obama has a plan for those 40+ million uninsured people. He will create a plan that is similar to what Congressmen have and allow those uninsured people to opt in. Yes, this will cost us tax dollars, but we should see a net increase in income and here is why. The extra money we pay in tax dollars to cover that plan will be less than the money we save in reduced insurance premiums.

Obama’s plan, unlike some others that existed, allow people to purchase or keep private insurance plans if they so desire. So if I like my current plan (which I do) I get to keep it! (Read the full plan here)

Now, lets look at John McCain’s plan. First and foremost, if you read his plan you will notice that he is pushing high deductable HSA plans. HSA plans are fine for some people but not for everyone.

Now, McCain would eliminate the tax incentive that businesses get for providing healthcare to their employees and would instead give money to individuals ($2500) or families ($5000) to get their own coverage. The “remainder” of those funds would go into an HSA. The only way his HSA plan would work is if the total cost of the insurance plus the deductible equaled the tax break (and we all know that wont be happening anytime soon) .

What is even more flawed with McCain’s plan is that by eliminating the tax benefit, employers may drop insurance coverage. The insurance coverage that employers get is typically negotiated for lower price and no health screenings for coverage. Without such negotiation, people would wind up paying much more for their health insurance than the $5000 John McCain is proposing. In fact, the average healthcare cost for a family of four is over $12000 (according to the National Coalition on Health Care).  And their cost is the average employer based healthcare plan (which comes at a reduced negotiated group rate).  So basically we will wind up with more uninsured people.

So what is John McCain’s plan for the uninsured? His own website states:

As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage.

In a nutshell, when it comes to the uninsured, John McCain has no plan. Period.

The choice is clear folks. All McCain wants to do is promote health savings accounts and has no plan for the uninsured. Barack Obama as the better, and more complete, healthcare plan.

Cross posted at my Barack Obama for President blog.

Go play the “Guess how many times Rudy says ‘global terrorism’” game and if you win, you get a free “No Way! No How! No McCain!” t-shirt.

In showing how the Republican party does not quite understand the real world, not only did the Republicans affirm their quest to obtain a constitutional ban on abortion, they also removed the reductions of abortions from their party platform.

So let me get this straight. The party who claims to be pro-life and wants to protect embryos is only caring about criminalizing abortion and not worrying about reducing their numbers? How is that for not being genuine?

Republicans also affirmed their hatred of homosexuals by continuing their support to ban gay marriages. I am sure that marriage defenders David “who would Vitter do” Vitter and Larry “toe tapping” Craig will be leading the battle charge on this one. I’m shocked they are not calling for both a return to Jim Crow laws and a constitutional amendment to keep women in the kitchen and out of the voting booth. Could the Republican Party be any more archaic?

Cross posted at Barack Obama for President.

Back in March I discussed how the terrorism card has been played far too many times and that eventually it would backfire. I also questioned when the American public would stop being scared by Bush’s comments on terror threats and start realizing that Bush’s policy on terrorism has failed to make us safer.

Now an adviser in John McCain’s camp stated that a terrorist attack would help McCain’s campaign. McCain backed away from the statement (likely because he didn’t want to look like he actually wanted a terrorist attack to happen). However, this line of thinking falls follows the thinking of the previous post.

If a terrorist attack happened, it would not be a sign that we are still unsafe so we need to elect the Republican to keep us safe. It would be a sign that the Republican policy on keeping us safe has failed us and we need to change our way of thinking.

Now, I am not going to speculate on how the American public would actually vote if we got attacked by terrorists again. However, if the American public is foolish enough to believe that electing McCain (who follows Bush’s failed ideas on keeping us safe from terrorism)  after a terrorist attack will make us safer then God help us all.

Cross posted at Obama for President.

John McCain, proving that he is losing touch with reality, came out against the supreme court ruling that even suspected terrorists have the right to question their incarceration by saying:

I think it’s one of the worst decisions in history, … It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution.

So let me get this straight. The conservative court actually upholds the right of all people to habeas corpus and McCain questions it as being one of the worst decisions in history?

Let us look at a couple of BAD SCOTUS decisions, shall we?

Plessy v Ferguson: You know, the whole “separate but equal” ruling that gives people a warm fuzzy feeling (I think it is nausea) inside? I wonder where McCain stacks the recent decision against Plessy.

Dred Scott: Back before our country was enlightened enough to realize that black people are people too, we had the Dred Scott verdict. Scott was not allowed to challenge his status in federal court. Where does McCain rank this in his list?

Another disturbing part of this article was the comment by fellow Republican and freedom hater Lindsey Graham who stated:

Americans are going to be shocked to find that that mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now has the same legal standing as an American citizen.

What Graham doesn’t understand is that as a country we should strive to be better than those who would attack us. Nobody here is going to say that Khalid is a good man. However, even the most vile of murderers deserve a fair trial and a day in court. It shouldn’t matter if the person is a citizen or not. We should strive for greatness and part of what makes us a great nation is the fairness of our court system. The ruling today returns a small portion of the fairness that had been stripped. To know that McCain would turn back the clock and rule that non-citizens are not worthy of equal access to our court system just proves he is not suitable to be our next President.

This will also be posted at my Obama for President blog.

Bobby Jindal has said that being Governor of Louisiana is the job he wants. However, he is talking like someone who actively is seeking out the vice presidency.

Jindal says Obama speaks well, but hasn’t delivered

That is a change, or a flip flop as you will, from his previous statement to Wolf Blitzer:

We want all the candidates to pay attention to Louisiana, especially our recovery needs. I think it’s a great thing. John Edwards came and announced his candidacy here, and got out of the race here. Major candidates have traveled here multiple times. We want both parties to pay attention to Louisiana. You know, the recovery needs will go well into the next administration.

Sounds like someone had a change of heart. Does Jindal no longer want both parties to pay attention to Louisiana?

On a related note, Sound Politics believes that Jindal should be first on the short list.

I have been trying to figure out the exact problem the Democrats are having this election. It shouldn’t be that hard. You have a Republican presidential candidate who is going to follow in the footsteps of President Bush if elected. Well, I figured it out.

This election should have been a referendum on the Bush Administration and those Republicans who continue to blindly follow Bush’s failed policies. However, it has become a referendum on “making history” and how we should do it (by either electing a black man or a woman to be our president).

This is not just a recipe for failure in the 2008 general election. This also loses sight of the main point of fighting for civil rights. We are not supposed to be supporting people because they are a woman or belonging to a minority group. We are supposed to try and treat all people equally regardless of their gender or ethnicity. As Dr. King said, judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

And yes, I completely  understand and accept the argument that a black person is likely to think that a black president would understand the needs of the black community (just as a woman might think that a woman president would understand the needs of women). That is all well and good for the individual. However, for the party as a whole, we need to get off of the idea that electing our candidate will make history. We need to get back to the idea that if John “Bush Wannabe” McCain gets elected, that our rights and civil liberties will BE history.