Now that bailing out every large corporation in trouble is in vogue with those "running"  the government.     General Motors and the other two remaining American car makers are stepping in line.  

The auto industry does has some major challenges.   It is stuck with some bad labor contracts, many retirees,   a lot of government regulations and a very bad current market.     Some of it is self inflicted  and plenty is the government fault.  

Having the government involved so much in business just isn't good.   It makes for the car companies to delay making the hard decisions that would save the companies.    GM really needs to stop thinking it will swallow Chrysler,  hopefully that deal will stay dead.    It only makes things worse.   But it something like that would never be considered without government interference.

Buick,  Pontiac, GMAC and Saturn's days are numbered,  their value isn't worth very much anymore.     Chevy and Cadillac  are the only two brands that have good sales anymore.  Something has to happen with the labor costs,  that can cannot continue to be kicked down the road.    But if the government offers money,  that problem will remain because it can be ignored again.   

Would GM be better off without it high cost labor contracts and retirees, most of its underperforming brands and a lot of government regulations?   Yes!   Will it happen?  Nope.   

Government doesn't believe in the free enterprise system.   Therefore it will not allow large company to evolve  or go out of business.    Instead of allowing the economy fix the auto industry on its own,   it will only help it decline further.  It will contiue to be the unwanted stepchild of the US economy that it has been for the last thirty years.  

A smaller leaner GM would do well with Chevy and Cadillac, but we may end up with none of the GM brands.      GM should be allowed to reorganize on its own.

Another thing you won't hear much about from the mainstream media is the voter turnout.    Most if asked would say it was way higher then normal.

THEY WOULD BE WRONG!

After the endless stories about the high turnout for Obama.   

After all the stories of new voter registrations and huge calls for voting.  

The turnout was barely higher then 2004!

American Universities Center for the Study of the American Electorate concluded the turnout was the same in percentage as the last presidential election.  Not even a rise of  1%. Wow,  it wasn't huge at all,  just different voters? 


Was it that so many were not interested in voting for McCain that they stayed home counteracting the additional Obama voters?   It looks like it.  

It does show that trying to elect a center-moderate candidate was a mistake for the Republicans.   Even adding Palin was too late.   It could be argued that the media forced McCain on the Republicans as well.   It does show that if a more conservative candidate is put up by Republicans in 2012 it will be better for them.   Those voters could be back,  making for actual bigger turnout?   

Even though Obama won this time the reality is there are still more conservative voters out there.  The proof is the passing of the pop. 8 in California and two other states.  Some conservatives may have sat this one out,  but many Obama voters support conservative ideas.    So if there is a candidate that they are excited about,  reelection will be harder for Obama.   He really cannot make the sharp left turn that some of his hard left voters want.    He was elected more by the center left with some moderate right. 

McCain did pretty well for the cards he was dealt.    It still was close.   A Republican party headed by Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin  and other conservatives show much promise.     Obama will have the nearly impossible task of keeping his high popularity.    It will be interesting.  

The biggest losers in this election aren't even Americans.    Although the media would make you believe that most foreigners would prefer Obama as our president, it really isn't in their best interest at times. 

The one that could suffer the most is Iraq.   Although the tide has turned,  if American troops leave too soon or fast,   could be disaster.    None of the other nations will stay,  not even Great Britain.    Iran and the terrorists could run free.  We will complain about a Obama presidency,  but at least here it won't be deadly.

The second is any country in the gun-sites of Islamic terror.    That is know just about everybody.    Europe will be more prone to terror attacks with a weak U.S. president.  Western Europeans still don't seem to understand the danger that they are in,  because living in our shadow has made them blind to it. 

The third is any country that trades with us.   Obama will most likely oppose more free trade and dial back on the free trade we have,  since most liberals don't understand how it works.    In the long run foreign products will be more expensive with additional taxes and regulation.    It will lead to more unemployment inside and outside the U.S. 

Government interference in the U.S. leading to a longer recovery in the economy will lead to recessions around the world.  When business is bad here,  it can be terrible in other places.   Not a great combo if you got homegrown terrorists and lots of unemployed.  

After all the hot air about America becoming more "popular" the rest of the world,   it  will actually make the world worse off.   We are better off being respected rather then being popular. 
 

Well my second scenario was pretty close wasn't it.!  It wasn't the one I was hoping for.   Its really funny (and a little scary) watching the "mainstream" media fall over each other with the positive Obama stories.  They really do love him.   Well enjoy it,  the honeymoon will be short.   That I can guarantee!   The media will continue to love him,  but that will not provide him with much relief since being president is nothing like a campaign.  

Some predictions. 

The far left will be very disappointed in short order.   When they find that Obama will not be as able to put forward (or even be very interested) in many of their pet causes.   They may end up attacking him  (and be very vicious about it), more then the Republicans will.  

Those not as far left will be disappointed as well.   The bar got set pretty high,  it will be hard for Obama to deliver.   Many of his promises are pie in the sky types of things that have no basis in reality.   Many were so dazzled by him, the setting in of real life will be very hard for some of the true believers. 

On the same vein,  Obama may find that his administration will probably suffer from the many little (and some big ones) scandals that plagued the Clinton administration.   The old saying is true,  the company you keep, can make or break you.    It will take up much of his time,  more then he would ever think.

On the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House,  if Illinois is any indication, they will not be able to do much.   They will be going in so many different directions,  the infighting and lack of Democratic leadership in Congress may make thing go slow for them.  Far more then anything the Republicans dish out on them, although their media pals will blame them anyway.

It remains to be seen, if Obama will back down, like Clinton, when things they are trying to do are unpopular.     You could count on Clinton second guessing himself when poll numbers looked bad.     Obama hasn't really introduced anything,  so even that is also unknown.  

I think I will have plenty of things to  write about for the next four years,  its going to be a bumpy ride.

Well, we all knew it was a long-shot.    Its over and Obama is going to be the president.     All the hard work of the "mainstream " media has finally worked for the Democrats.    The deck was stacked against McCain and the Republicans from the beginning.    Eight years of the continuous rhetoric brought to your living room by the media  was bound to wear thin.     If you hear it enough, it must be true.   

It could be worse,  the Democrats didn't get the 60 seats in the Senate.   Hopefully the Republicans can slow the worst the Democrats have to offer.    They will try hard at "change" because they will think they have a mandate.    We no longer have a veto to stop the nonsense.   

Here in Indiana a bright spot.   Mitch Daniels was reelected.   Indiana will continue to be a oasis in the midwest.   So thats good news. 

Two years in exile will hopefully bring some changes to the Republican Party.   As a party it has been off base for a while.   This loss was a long time coming.   In a lot of ways Republicans have been Democrat-lite,  so in the mind of many voters,  why bother when you can have the real thing.   There will be talk of the end of conservatism but we all know that isn't true. 

Conservatives must take control of the Republican Party and clean house.   It was the most successful when conservatives principles were in charge.  We must be united as a party,  the Democrats are,  we aren't.  If that doesn't happen,  it will be a long time until Republicans will be in the White House or control Congress again.  We cannot count on complete Democrat   failure and scandals,  they will manage good spin on anything.     

They fooled America today.  Too many drank the kool-aid.  We have to make the best of it.   If we worked at it,  Congress could return to the Republican Party in two years.    Hopefully Obama will be more Jimmy Carter then Bill Clinton.   That will make it easier but it will not easy no matter what.   Obama will lose a lot of support when people discover he cannot change the world the way they think he will. 

More on this all soon.  It not the end of the world!  Peace!!

  

My predictions  scenarios for today!  

One scenario  is  good,  one not.

First scenario:   A  tight McCain win.  He wins all the states won by Bush in 2004.  He has to win most or all those states to win.  This scenario works only if enough Republicans get out and vote to counteract all the new Obama voters. Possible in the red states of 2004.  There are more new or returning Republican voters out there then the media would ever allow you to think.  Tough but possible, many people are quite scared of an Obama presidency, including this blogger,  and will get out to vote even if they aren't big McCain fans.   This scenario keeps things the same electoral vote wise.  Large turnouts  but same ratio of electoral votes.  Not the best win in the world but  it will do.  McCain 286 Obama 252.

Sort of a side scenario, if Pennsylvania goes McCain's  way it is a big plus,  giving him a better and bigger win.    He cannot lose two of the following: Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.  If one of those is lost, Pennsylvania has to be won (same thing if Colorado and another western state like New Mexico or Nevada is lost).    The polls in places like Indiana, Colorado and VIrginia  are likely bogus.     McCain is leading there.    This scenario counts on that Obama is more hype then actual  Democratic voters.    Possible due to the media love fest with Obama.   McCain 307 Obama 231.

Second scenario:  The not good one.  Obama wins two or three states Bush won in 2004. Obama brings out Democrats in bigger numbers,  or at least enough to win.   The media lovefest with the Democrat candidate has finally worked after trying in 2000 and 2004.   Obama wins Virginia and New Mexico for a very tight win.   McCain loses even though he won Ohio and  Florida.   McCain 268 Obama 270.

Thats the scary thing,  if McCain loses a big eastern state (Virginia, Ohio and Florida)  that Bush won in 2004 he loses if if a small state in addition like New Mexico, Iowa or Nevada is lost too!   He could win even if he lost one of the big three as long as no small states is lost.   If he loses two of the following big eastern states he loses even if he wins all the rest of Bush's states.   Another loss could happen if the three western states (Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada) are lost, even if the big three are won in the east.
So even if those three big eastern states are in the bag, its still could be bad for McCain.


Funky weird scenario:   McCain wins all the states won by Bush in 2004 but loses Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico to Obama giving each candidate 269 electoral votes each.   270 is needed to win.    The circus would move to Congress,  not a pretty picture if that happens.   McCain 269 Obama 269,  Obama wins, Democratic Congress will throw it to him.   


Final thoughts.

Neither candidate is going to win big.   That media bit is pure crap.   Forget about "landslides" for either side.  I really don't see Obama running away with this election even if he wins.    It going to be a nail biter.   Plan on staying up late.    An early indicator could be my home state of Indiana (polls close early here).   It will show if the media's polls are true nonsense or not.     If Obama is getting good numbers in Indiana its probably over. 

However its not as bad as it could be for McCain.   He could still win and by a larger amount of electoral votes then a tight Obama win.   Hopefully voter fraud will not effect the way a states electoral vote goes.   Thats a big if,  ACORN hasn't been stopped everywhere.

One good thing that will come out of this election.  Higher voter turnout.   If may be the only good thing about it.   If we could get better information and coverage of the election by the media it would be more fair for the majority of voters.   Many Obama voters truly don't know who they are voting for.   People need to learn to vote on the issues not on the emotions and rhetoric of the candidates.

So get out there and Vote For McCain-Palin!!!!!

The Obama campaign and some of its allies like ACORN has for the most part opposed photo id laws for voting.    A few states like Indiana have laws that you need a photo id to vote (if you don't have it,  you can still vote provisionally but you have to provide proof of id later).    It designed to prevent voter fraud,  like double voting or voting for a someone else like a dead person. 

But these groups still bellyache about how these laws prevent voters from voting.   Never mind that nobody ends up being turned away.     They sue the state hoping a judge will throw it out.   Indiana's law was upheld by the supreme court. 

As you maybe already know,  Obama is holding a election night party at Chicago's Grant Park.   Grant Park is the large downtown park made famous by the rioting at the Democratic Convention in 1968.     However there are many more people that would like to go then there is space.    So it was by lottery to get tickets to the area close to the stage.   The tickets have your name printed on them and are not transferable. 

And guess what!   To prevent trading and selling of tickets, A PHOTO ID IS REQUIRED to enter the park!

The  50 states are evil monsters to want to prevent voter fraud with photo id,  but to make things more convenient for the Obama campaign it OK.    You have got to love the logic.  

Shows what is important to Obama and his supporters.

Typical Democrat,   Do as I say,  not as I do!

Prove the "Mainstream" Media wrong (again),  Vote McCain-Palin Tomorrow!

(Yeah, its a dumb reason to vote for McCain, but no more dumb then many of the reasons people are voting for Obama!)

Good read on the "New Left".   The Real Engine of Blue America by Steven Malanga.   How unionized public employees hold cities hostage with their "social justice".      It was written in 2005 but since nothing has really changed,  it still current. 

Good tidbits include:

More people are employed by public and private (although most are paid with public money) social services in New York City then work on Wall Street. 

There really isn't a truly blue state,  but are really blue cities surrounded by red suburbs and countryside. 

Employment in healthcare exploded with the creation of medicare and medicaid when government money arrived. 

Wouldn't you know it!   Obama aunt in Boston, is a illegal alien!   She has been living in the U.S. for nearly five years after being ordered by a judge to leave!   No wonder he hasn't said anything about her. 

As you already know,  most celebrities are die hard Obama fan-boys.   Comic cartoonist  Gary Trudeau,  who draws the Dippy  Doonesbury strip,  is very confident in an Obama win.    So much his strips for next week are set for a Obama victory.   Getting a little ahead of themselves aren't they.

One of the fun things that will result from a McCain victory on Tuesday is to make people like Trudeau look pretty dumb.     I think some are making plans on how they will be "annoyed and disturbed"  by a McCain win.    It will be fun to see the whining.  

Gary Trudeau is one of those folks that drive me nuts about celebrities types.    How anyone with money and success could be liberal is one of those things like jumbo shrimp.   They exist but they just don't make any sense.  

Of course there has been problems with Doonesbury before,   why any would put up with the nonsense he writes about is just one of those things.   Most newspaper editors are rerunning old strips so very few will actually end up seeing the Obama Doonesbury strips,   even if he wins.

One of the issues that usually come up in a election is school funding.   Not so much this year for some reason.    But it is still a good issue to talk about.   Since I have been mostly writing about the failures of the "mainstream" media and such,  lets talk about an actual governmental funding issue for a change.

Most people if polled would likely say schools are underfunded (and teachers are underpaid).    Never mind that they do get a lot of tax money (often the largest part of your property tax),  and much of it ends up getting wasted or spent on stuff that shouldn't be.    Most communities property taxes are already too high to increase school taxes so that isn't an option for most places. 

We do currently have a source of money that could be used for schools.   It would not increase taxes,  nor take any other money that the government has already taken from us. 

I propose that all public school sports teams be funded by donations, not tax dollars.   All the money spent on sports (outside of p.e.) should be directed back into the academic part of schools.  I have never heard of any place doing something like this,  if you have let me know.  

No,  we don't have to give up the high school football team (or any other sports for that matter). 

Why get rid of tax dollars for school sport teams you may ask?   Sports are expensive.   The insurance on football alone costs from the hundreds of thousands to even millions of dollars for a average school district.    It is far too much money that is outside of the core operations of a school.

Sport teams are outside the academic world of schools.  Sure sports can teach,  but the costs of those lessons are too expensive and shouldn't be paid by  the taxpayers.  Schools need to stick to academics not the running of huge sports machines.    

Sports are popular enough to be able to raise its own support.   The idea of losing a team or sport would rally the community to save it and I think money could be raised quickly.    Any individual, foundation, civic organization,  charity, business,  and even the parents of the student could donate to the community sports organization.   It could be set up to be tax deductible as well.  It would give the community complete "ownership"  of their sports teams.    The only group that wouldn't be allowed to "donate" would be other government groups so the costs wouldn't be shifted elsewhere (like from a city budget etc.).   They can only support in ways that they already do (crowd control, use of parks and other government property, etc).

Each community could set up a point non-profit  organization for each school district to collect the donations.   The biggest sport boosters could be the ones that do the fund raising, since they love the sports more then just about anyone.     A idea like this could be fazed  in,  to get the community used to the idea.   You could start out with raising 25% of the budget for sports the first year,  50% the second and so on.     They could raise as little or as much as they would like.   The the level of sports would be what the community wants and supports.    Money could be from all kinds of places,  admission,  concessions,  fees to the users, fund raisers, and whatever things people could think of.    The use of volunteers would be paramount as well.   It would give the kids involved a good lesson on economics and put a stop to some of the bad attitudes towards the community that sometimes come from sports. 

Also,   wealthy communities could donate to poorer districts,  that would be allowed, encouraged, but  totally voluntary.   In my area (Northwest Indiana)  towns like Munster or Lake Central could adopt East Chicago or Gary.   It would help the areas communities get to know each other better and grow together.  Sports do transcend different racial and economic groups more then just about anything.   I think a community like Gary would be able to raise on it own, far more money then most people would think anyway as well.  

Yeah, I know this wouldn't be too popular (at least at first).   Yes, it wouldn't be to easy to start,  and it could threaten  the existence of some teams at the beginning.    But privatizing public school team sports could be good for eduction.     It would put education as the first priority,   most honest educators would be happy to let some other group handle sports teams.    

In a lot of other ways it wouldn't change school sports,  teachers still would be hired to coach, the teams would still have school names, colors. playing fields would still be the same.    The school districts would provide physical location,  the coaching staff,  those things at cost to the sports group.   The sports group would pay for all of those things,  like maintenance of the sports areas,  insurance, coaching staff etc,  but would get the income that may come in. 

However all these sports groups MUST be private organizations.   They must be open to all,   but they should NEVER be a governmental organization in any way.  They can never take public money or be allowed to tax.   Other wise we will only create new money monsters that the community loses control off.    In a lot of ways we don't have control of our public schools,  something like this gives it back to where it belongs.   In the community it is in and serves. 

I would love comments on this.   Help me fix little problems that would crop up if something like this would come to be.    Lets hear them.   I think this could be a solution to how we fund our public schools.

Could this Videotape Cost Obama the Election?  

We may never know.  

They won't let us see the tape!

The LA Times has a videotape of Obama at a dinner for a PLO terrorist.   He is supposedly praising this man,  Rashid Khalidi for whatever "work" this guy has done.     It must be really bad  for the LA Times to try to keep it secret.    

This video must be seen by the voters.   If it shows Obama making bad choices it must be seen.  He hasn't changed since then and that's how he will make choices as president.   It will show how naive Obama is towards those who want to destroy America.  

Not taking our enemies seriously is not a option as President of the U.S.  We are paying deeply for the Clinton and Carter years.    These Democrats did not take our enemies seriously.   Our enemies know our weaknesses.   Obama will be as weak if not weaker then those past Presidents.    That is why they have endorsed him.  

That is why Obama should NEVER be the President!

You would know about it in seconds if there was a tape of McCain or Palin out there that made them look bad.     But there is one on Obama that probably makes him look bad.    Notice you haven't seen it!   It because the LA Times refuses to show it.  

If you are one of those folks out there who STILL thinks the "mainstream" media is fair and balanced,  you are living under a rock or your head is buried deep in the sand.  

To the editors and owners of the LA Times:  

As a news organization you owe it to the American voters to show this tape before the election.   IF you had a similar tape on the Republican candidate you would have no problem with showing the tape.    But since you favor the Democratic candidate you have a problem.    

If you cause Obama to lose,  it isn't your fault.  If you continue to help Obama it is your fault.   It is Obama's big mouth that will cost him the presidency.   You do not owe him anything and you do a great disservice to yourselves and your readers by withholding this tape. 

The LA Times and many others in your business have not covered the 2008 election fairly.   It is very easy to see who you favor for president.    This tape needs to be seen and not hidden until after the election.  

Release this tape immediately!

In a lot of ways this election has been very disappointing.   In spite of the fact that the majority of American's are conservative,  the far left candidate has a good chance of winning the presidency next week.    I just don't get the reasons why people want to vote for Obama.   Many of those reasons are so lame! 

We need change! 

That seems to be the biggest  reason why folks are voting for Obama.   How Obama represents change,  I don't know.   His small record sure doesn't show that he represents change.   In fact it indicates  the opposite.   He has stood by corruption every time.  He has never challenged  the corrupt in Illinois.  Never!

The policies that he has even put out in the open (and those he is still hiding) indicate that wants to go back to the policies of the "Great Society"  and FDR.    He talks about the failures of the last eight years but never talks about the  failure of liberalism for the last eighty!    He wants to bring those failed policies BACK!  I have never heard any other reason besides that he isn't George Bush,  so if you can give me a reason why Obama represents change I would love to hear it.

Obama has been dogged by lies about his character by Republicans.  

This one is really annoying to me.   Why would that make you want to vote for someone?     Its one of the reasons that Colin Powell used to say he would be voting for the anointed one.     The reality is that many of the "lies" are in fact true.  Sure some of the stories out there aren't true,  but many of them are!      Obama not answering questions about those things don't inspire confidence, so in my book that is a reason for NOT voting for someone,  not one for voting FOR someone.  

The past eight years have been a complete failure.

How has the last eight years been a complete failure?   The economy has been good,  terrorists haven't returned to our soil since 9/11.   Nobody notes that most of the financial problems have cropped up in the last two years,  the time the congress has been controlled by Democrats!    It's poll numbers are lower then the last Republican congress and President Bush.   So why is the congress likely to become more Democrat?    Its has been the Republican Party that has allowed the economy to boom for the last twenty or so years in spite of Democrats!

Back in 1972,  the "mainstream" media was hoping for a McGovern win.   They hated Nixon as much as they hate President Bush today.     Back then, there wasn't much in the way of conservative media, even less then today.     Yet McGovern never got more then twenty or so percent in polls before the election.    What did the general population know that kept them from voting for McGovern that voters don't seem to know about Obama  today?    Nixon had one of the largest majorities ever.   Why isn't McCain (or any Republican presidential candidate for that matter)  have a huge majority of the vote?   Obama is so far from the majority of  voters nearly nobody should be voting for him.  

But yet they are!  

Even if Republicans weren't so "unpopular"   with the media,   why isn't Obama doing the opposite and putting McCain away?   In spite of all the media basically campaigning for him,   huge amounts of money from who know where,   and Republicans made to look like the devil it stays close!    Is the silent majority out there?  It seems to be.    I hope it is so!

The Polls are Wrong!