A very recent conversation

I was just standing next to two girls having a conversation about the Obama rally last night in Chicago. One had a ticket to get into the main area and the other showed up to stand in the overflow section at Butler Field.

Here are the topics they discussed in the two minutes before lunch:

• He's such an amazing speaker
  
• I had to stand for a really long time
  
• McCain's speech was gracious but I wish he would have made it shorter
  
• Did you hear the girl singing the national anthem? She messed up, like, three times
  

These are two college-educated women working in a corporation in downtown Chicago. They are young and probably fit the Obama supporter profile to a T.

I don't want to seem unkind, but I have a feeling conversations like this are happening around water coolers and in dorm rooms across America. I appreciate the youth of this country and want them to get out and vote, but I have so little faith in them to lead with any substance that it taints my thoughts about how this election has turned out.

Maybe I'm paranoid and kids will grow up and have families and it will affect their level of substance, but if the world is continuing to shift in the direction the youth are already going, will they have to change anything? If the world continues to accomodate short attention spans and celebrity treatment of anyone on a television set, why do elections then have to become anything of substance in the minds of young adults?

This is where my mind goes when I hear conversations like this about the event/spectacle of this past election.

How's your experience?

I came across the transcript of an interview between PBS's Jim Lehrer and then Gov. George W. Bush.

For anyone who is considering prior experience in this race and all the talk about not being a Washington, DC, insider, then it might be interesting to note the approval rating of the President. A man with no Washington experience takes the reigns because the country desires change and now he is being run out of office.

I don't believe that experience at the federal level is necessary -- does anyone really have the experience to lead this country? -- but the Democratice Party has a lot of nerve to have shoved the experience question into Gov. Bush's face in 2000 and now embraces that experience in their own candidate.

Tax cuts for the middle class: Good for the economy?

The two presidential candidates have continued campaigning through the day today and tax cuts continue to come up. I have been listening for a loooong time to the same messages and it seems like I could give the speeches for each candidate at this point.

Something caught my ear today, however, when I heard someone trying to break down the two tax plans. Sen. McCain espouses a top-down -- or trickle down -- economic plan while Sen. Obama wants to institute a bottom-up plan. We have traditionally gone for the top-down approach that says if you make it more profitable for the people at the top (businesses, investors, owners, etc.) then that will mean that jobs are created and products available for consumption, leading to more money flowing.

The bottom-up plan means that taxes are kept low for the lower and middle classes, thereby alleviating the pressure on the lower classes to meet their economic challenges. To pay for these tax cuts, one taxes the people at the top with the effect of bringing everyone to the middle. The poor get closer to the middle, the top gets closer to the middle and the middle...well, they're pretty much stuck where they are.

This is a huge difference in philosophy and a troublesome difference in my opinion. This is the way I see it:

The people at the top are creating wealth in this country, not the people at the bottom. Last I checked, this is still a relatively hands-off capitalistic economy. If the folks at the top feel like they are not going to get enough return on their investment or can make a greater profit margin elsewhere in the world, they will begin moving out of this country or standing on the sidelines waiting for the rules to change. There is no loyalty in business whether you're talking about the Wal-Mart brand or the United States brand. Businesses are instituted to make a profit and they will seek out the best ground in which to make that profit. For a struggling economy, this is a bad direction.

If taxes are cut at the top -- yes, for those horrible wealthy people -- then businesses are going to remain here, which means investment remains here, which, ultimately, means China continues to invest in our economy. They are an integral part of our success and without their investment in our markets, we will collapse. What we've seen at this point is just the quick jolt that precedes the fall. This ain't nothing compared to what it could be.

So we keep the people at the top, they keep churning out products for people to buy, they need employees to make said products, everyone wins. In a down economy, we need to look to the likes of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Cut those corporate taxes or prepare to meet your ruin.

Sen. McCain's heart still in it?

I've been thinking about something a lot lately. I'm wondering at times if Sen. McCain really wants to be the President. I can see him campaigning hard every day and he's putting a lot of energy into the run, but he's missing opportunity after opportunity to make up ground.

Bill O'Reilly, the best-run news organization in the country, has offered numerous times for Sen. McCain to come onto his show and would basically give him a half hour of free air to a huge national audience. Even this week the offer was extended to the Senator again. But he declined and went onto a show with Tom Brokaw. Brokaw? He's still on the telly?

The O'Reilly Factor goes out to tens of millions of people each day on tv and radio. He is not pro-McCain and he's certainly more balanced than any other media outlet. So Sen. McCain would get a fair shake. And yet he refused. He's also kept away Gov. Palin from O'Reilly.

I don't understand Sen. McCain. It feels like his strategy is to lose. That's the only thing I can come up with.

McCain fighting the battle...uphill both ways

A recent study released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism shows some astounding numbers concerning the news coverage of this presidential race.

MSNBC has positioned itself squarely on the left side of the political spectrum and have become a third-party attack dog for the Democratic Party. This study reveals that 73% of the coverage of Sen. McCain has had a negative tone against 57% of the general media's news stories. They have also only reported 10% of the time with a positive tone, down from 14% of the general media's positive stories.

The report claims that the major primetime newscasts are somewhat neutral, though probably skewing slightly left. Not much, however. They have been decidedly less negative than CNN, MSNBC, and even the morning network shows (ie, Good Morning America, The Today Show, etc.)

Fox News Channel, however, has bucked the trends to the left. They reported more positive stories on Sen. McCain and more negative stories on Sen. Obama. Though having a reputation of being heavily for Sen. McCain and heavily against Sen. Obama, the tone of their reporting was right down the middle negatively. This report says that negative stories about each candidate were reported 40% of the time. That's right, right down the middle. Shall I say, "Fair and Balanced"?

This leads me to think: What chance does any Republican have in a national election. Sen. Obama has received the bulk of the positive coverage from the press. Sen. McCain has received the bulk of the negative. And on top of that, Sen. Obama has a 6 to 1 edge in spending money -- an advantage he used to air an ad on primetime television. An ad that only cost $6M. How much do you think it would have cost Sen. McCain to get that same air time? I feel like there was a little hometown discount there. Especially if you consider that Ross Perot, in 1991, ran the same type of talking to the people message on only two networks and it cost him $26M. Maybe like everything else, airtime isn't worth as much as it used to be.

So with a heavy disadvantage in money and press coverage, Obama leads by, what, 6 points? I believe that's 6 points handed to him by the media because of their overwhelming support. So for those who might say, "What's the big deal if the media is a little biased?" Well, that's the deal. For a candidate who preaches fairness and a level playing field, he sure hasn't done much to try and correct the tilt.