McCain wants Obama to win... how else can you explain his behavior?

A 60-something McCain was better than Bush and perhaps better than Gore. A 70-something McCain is a good enough American to hand the election to the best candidate in generations... Barack Obama.

If McCain is a bright man (despite graduating 894 of 899 in college), then he wants Obama to win. His desire for Obama to win is evident in many of his recent actions, especially the following...

• McCain picks the least qualified VP is US history. (McCain wants you to use your common sense and not vote for an old man who has an uninformed, unqualified running mate.)
• McCain suspends his campaign to fix the economy.(McCain wants you to see that he is truly erratic, not just because an Obama ad said so.)
• McCain looks like an amateur in 3 of 3 debates. (McCain said he was "going to kick Obama's 'you know what'" in the third debate, but instead he simply referred to a loser named Joe 20+ times.)
• And the list goes on...

Has McCain convinced you to support Obama?

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Al Gore was dull and boring, even Gore and bore rhyme. But George W. Bush was far from a bore.

With questions, George Bush was frequently at a loss for words or creating words, which made him appear spontaneous and ordinary. Many people voted for Bush because he was more "likeable" than Gore. Therefore, in 2000, voters (along with the US Supreme Court) decided that our country needed an average, likeable guy rather than an intelligent, accomplished one. Eight years later, we are paying a hefty price for having Mr. Ordinary as President.

In 2008, Ms. Ordinary is now campaigning to be the Vice President to the oldest presidential nominee in US history. However, it seems that enough people are beginning to realize that they will never meet, much less have a beer with, a presidential nominee - so, it makes no difference if the candidate is likeable - the United State needs a leader that is intelligent and healthy enough to be capable and effective.

John McCain likes war (100 years in Iraq) and Sarah Palin believes that the world may be coming to an end (her church makes Rev. Wright look like a comedian). Thus, WWIII is much more likely with McCain/Palin... McCain will create war(s) and Palin should see war as simply a part of "end times". Prior to Bush, Americans had not seen how much damage a dimwitted president could cause. With Bush's exceptionally low approval ratings, it's evident that many Americans realize they made a mistake by electing Mr. Ordinary. So, without Bush, many Americans would make a mistake by voting for Ms. Ordinary. Thus, Bush has done his part to avert World War III.

Honorable Mention for Nobel Peace Prize - Tina Fey for making a mockery of a conceited, arrogant and uninformed candidate.

What are your thoughts?

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

It's been nearly a week since the second presidential debate. In hindsight, the statement that stands out the most to me is Obama saying that health care is a "right". The founding principles of our country include certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

• We have national defense to protect all Americans from death by attack.
• We have government imposed speed limits to protect all Americans from death by high-speed crash.
• We have government sponsored police and fire departments to protect all Americans from death by murder or fire.
• Why should we not have government sponsored (universal) health care to protect all Americans from death by disease?

No bailout is/was needed...
To reverse this nation's economic crisis, I would argue that universal health care is the best answer. Most people that do not have employer sponsored health insurance are working a lower wage job and cannot afford to buy an individual policy (the same people who are likely to have a subprime mortgage). If you're one of those people, McCain's $5k tax credit does nothing, but add insult to injury. People would be able to afford mortgage payments if they did not have to pay for health care. Universal health care would result in a healthier, more productive population, fewer bankruptcies and no need for any bailout, because many more people would be able to afford to pay their mortgage.

What are your thoughts?

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

When asked a question during tonight’s debate, Palin responded in complete sentences, but typically did not provide relevant answers to the questions she was asked (instead reverting to a few overly rehearsed answers).

It is also irritating to hear her condescending “conversational” style. How many times did she say “gonna” or substitute “ing” with “in’”. I believe quite a few former McCain/Palin voters will vote for Obama/Biden simply because they are sick of hearing Palin’s patronizing tone. People should say, voters aren’t stupid Ms. Sarah – you can talk to us like big, educated boys and girls.

Another interesting point I heard tonight – Palin was watched by about 5 million people on her embarrassing, revealing, and disastrous interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson. Palin was watched by about ten (10) times more people for her speech at the Republican National Convention and for tonight’s debate (in which she spoke in complete sentences). So, in other words, 45 million people don't know how uninformed this politician is...

Nobody paying attention to Palin can think she is prepared to be VP. Agree or disagree, what are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Yesterday, I posted an article about Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his CEO friends losing hundreds of millions of dollars from their personal portfolios. In fact, during the last 20 months Paulson has lost nearly $300 Million from stock at Goldman Sachs, his former employer. It seems that Paulson has two significant ulterior motives for selling Congress and taxpayers on the $700 billion bailout - his friends and Goldman Sachs.

Following many spectacular collapses of financial firms (Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Bros, etc.), Goldman Sachs somehow managed to stay afloat - perhaps they knew long ago about this a bailout from their former CEO.

So, let's keep this situation and change the characters and companies... Ronald McDonald has served as Treasury Secretary for the last couple of years. And during the last few years, fast food corporations acted as irresponsibly with their finances.  Then Burger King goes bankrupt, then Wendy's, then Taco Bell nearly goes bankrupt to absorb Subway and its debt. However, McDonald's manages to survive and then Sec. Ronald McDonald suddenly decides to push for a $700 billion bailout.

Would Ronald McDonald have a conflict of interest? Yes.
Does Henry Paulson have a conflict of interest? Yes.
Did Dick Cheney have a conflict of interest? Yes.

There is no question that this country is facing an economic crisis. The average family has an increasing amount of debt and an income that doesn't increase at the rate of inflation. However, I do not believe that this $700 billion bailout is anywhere close to the answer. I would argue that universal health care is the best answer. Most people that do not have employer sponsored health insurance are working a lower wage job and cannot afford to buy an individual policy (the same people who are likely to have a subprime mortgage). If you're one of those people, McCain's $5k tax credit does nothing, but add insult to injury. People would be able to afford mortgage payments if they did not have to pay for health care. Universal health care would result in a healthier, more productive population, fewer bankruptcies and no need for a bailout, because many more people would be able to afford to pay their mortgage. Paulson's plan is going to result in a rebound for Goldman Sachs stock and a recovery of Paulson's $300 million personal loss.

What are your thoughts?

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net