I’ve held off on this post for roughly a week as I wanted to watch the political fallout take place before drawing any conclusions.

The very first conclusion one must draw is the election of Scott Brown was a fluke, a political outlier, and voting behavior will return to “normal” once the next round of elections take place.

Do I think that is the case? No, but we have to acknowledge that is possibility.

Was health care reform the driving factor in the Brown election?

While the data points to health care being the largest single issue in the election (56% of voters), Martha Coakley won this segment of the population by a 53% to 46% margin. It doesn’t seem to be a clear sign that voters put Brown into office because they oppose the proposed legislation, does it? Brown obtained his support in areas that are traditionally Republican strongholds – the Economy and National Security.

The administration apparently thinks the election of Scott Brown was due to economic reasons as there have been a number of significant actions taken on their part since last Tuesday. Viewing the November elections as a potential lost cause if things do not turn around, the administration took a knee jerk reaction and announced significant bank regulation and a freeze on discretionary spending. Unfortunately both actions will have little impact on the economy this year, and the bank regulation has the ability – if implemented incorrectly – to do more damage to the economy than inaction on behalf of the administration.

Why do I describe their action as “knee jerk”? I’m sorry to say but the horse is out of the barn, the barn is on fire and the well has run dry.  The economic policy of the last 20 years has set the nation on the current path, and the sudden expansion of the US debt/monetary base over the last year have all but placed another economic collapse (and currency collapse) in the cards for the United States. Simply saying “well, let’s separate investment banks from retail banks” has no impact on the underlying problems.

If not health care, national security or economics, what was this election about?

Yes, these factors played into Scott Brown winning his seat but I believe this election was more about frustration with politicians in general, rather than a specific political agenda. Politicians have a nasty habit of saying what is important to them and ignoring the voices of those they serve and it appears voters have said “Enough”.

The people of Massachusetts have said listen to us, listen to our overall concerns, and they picked the candidate – regardless of party – who they felt would actually do so, as well as best represent their needs on a national stage.

This should act as a wakeup call to any other politician who thinks they have the ability to push their agent forward when the constituents they serve are saying otherwise.

What was once a great clip with Hitler ranting about a video game has turned into something even better…Hitler finding out Scott Brown won the Senate Seat.

Enjoy!

The administration attempted to get around President Obama’s first “non bow” with the King of Saudi Arabia by saying he was going to shake the King’s hand.  It was obvious to anyone with an IQ that doesn’t fall into the mentally handicapped range that the President did, indeed, bow.  (Here is a reminder for you).

While meeting the Emperor of Japan this past weekend President Obama, once again, took a bow.  There is no getting around it, no “he was going to shake his hand” spin here. The President bowed. The administration came out saying the President was simply following protocol when, in fact, he was not.

Actually – there is NO protocol for a president bowing. Here is why: One of the pillars the United States was founded on was the rejection of a caste system (hereditary social classes and subclasses)   No Americans in any station are required to bow to royalty as bowing signifies submission to the person receiving the bow.  Bowing is not a sign of mutual respect.  As President Obama represents the United States, as a result, when the president bows to a foreign official he bows for all Americans.

You have politicians and pundits trying to make this a political thing, it is not.  This is a man that just ignored 230 plus years of principle. I would be very curious to know how any World War Two Bataan Death March survivors (if there are any alive today) feel about this.  Let us look past that for a second, let us look at the ‘gesture’ from the Japanese perspective.  What very well may have been intended as a sign of respect could be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs.

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part

Some one really needs to alert the President that the message he is sending is, quite possible, not the message he is intending.

I was in the process of writing a very long, very detailed criticism of President Obama’s choice of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.  I’ve given up.

Sure, I went into detail about her views that judging should be based on empathy, not on reason. I had plenty of quotes on how she has stated it impossible for the poor to overcome in the United States, even though that is exactly what she did.  I was going to go into detail on how she believes sex and race play a part in the judicial process, sometimes overshadowing the law.  I was also going to cover how she has a history of having her decision overturned and a lack of case review on her part.  But, as I said, I’ve give up.

Why?

It is a fruitless effort.  

It was clear Mr. Obama wanted specific type of person for the open Supreme Court position.  All of the final choices were women, most with an “activist” agenda.  He wasn’t interested in finding the right person for the job, he was looking for a label. It’s also clear that Republican’s cannot truly oppose her choice as they will be labeled racist.

That wouldn’t be the case – they would be opposing simply because she is not qualified and apparently biased in her role…but that is now how the press would spin it.

Think about this. What happens if you apply for a job that you are not qualified for?  

Most likely, you are not going to get an interview let alone get the job. The second an institution starts picking people because of their age, sex and/or ethnic background creditability is instantly lost. If you are not picking the most qualified person available, why are you picking anyone at all?

This isn’t a political issue – she has had both Democratic and Republican support in her career – this is about doing the right thing.  Based off of everything I’ve read in the last 12 hours, she is not the right choice.  There are a number of highly qualified individuals, both men and women, would should be filling this role. Sonia Sotomayor is not one of those choice.

“We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to — not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe, When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops.” - President Obama

Just like we were safe in Beirut, 1983.

Just like our nation was safe in February of 1993 when the World Trade Center was bombed.

Much like we were safe from simultaneous car bomb explosions during the 1998 embassy bombings.

Also, our fundamental policies can point to the safety that protected the USS Cole.

How about September 11th, 2001? Without a doubt, safety was granted to us that day because of what we believe in.

What will grant the the United States, or any nation, safey? It’s called national security. For years, under Carter, Regan, Bush(I) and Clinton the United States basically turned the other cheek against terrorism. Since 9/11, and the mentality changed, there have been *NO* major terror attacks against U.S. interests.

How did it change? Maybe it was the fact that we stopped accepting such actions as a reality.

When the U.S. took the fight to the terrorists, it WAS holding the values and principles of the United States by protecting the life and liberty of others. It WAS acting as a nation with principles should. Ignoring reality is not a principle or value, it is a liability.

According to our President it’s because we were too busy not upholding U.S. principles and values as he views them. By that very logic, as well as documented history, returning to what he calls “fundamental principles and values” will only return the U.S. to an unacceptable level of risk and weakened security. If he cannot see that, he should not be in the position of providing protection to this nation.

Online gaming site Superbook.com is already setting odds for the Republican nominee in 2012.  The nation is only two months past the last election and people are already looking to the next election.  You cannot be serious, can you?

So, what do the bookmakers think of the next election? First the Republicans nomination… Sarah Palin’s odds are at 3.5-1,  Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are set at 4-1, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, comes in at 5-1. 

On the Democratic side, Obama is favored to win the nomination and a second term (didn’t see that one coming, did you?)

Our nation is facing enough at this point – the economy, energy just to name two – do we really need to focus on what will be taking place in politics 4 years from now.  Let’s worry about what we have to fix first then pay attention to the next election.

Just my .02

John McCain ran a poor campaign, plain and simple.  Many pundits feel McCain’s efforts were so poor the Bob Dole campaign looked good in comparison.  There was hope for Republicans when Sarah Palin joined the ticket but the sudden rock star status turned negative quickly as the press began to hammer her abilities and credentials.  After the Republican convention McCain got a bump in number, overtaking Obama for roughly a week, and then the reality of the financial crisis set in.  Today, Obama leads McCain by 7 to 9 points.

The party is over, and the McCain camp knows it.  Word came out today that the McCain campaign will be discontinuing ads / campaigning in the state of Michigan – a battleground state.  If McCain had a chance, would he be pulling back the troops?

Unless there is a drastic change of events, come election day, I suspect Obama will be winning by a wide margin.

As the United States quickly moves toward the Presidential Elections many people are waiting for an “October Surprise” – an event that will drastically change the election in favor of one candidate.  The major event influencing the race today is the financial bailout currently working its way through Congress. Without a doubt the economic turmoil has favored Barack Obama, showing his lead in the polls growing as the uncertainty continues to grow, but will there be another event to swing the momentum in favor of McCain?

Maybe an Israeli attack on Iran?

Earlier in the year Israel apparently asked the United States for permission to attack Iranian nuclear facilities but was denied by the Bush administration.  As Iran progresses with the nuclear program Israel feels, more and more, their very existence is threatened.  As a result, the Israeli government will do what they feel is best for their safety – attack Iran.

Will they do so before the election?  Is so, will this be the “October Surprise” that swings the favor to McCain or will the US public move even closer to Obama?

From everything one hears in the news there seems to be small – slight – signs pointing to an energy crunch in the United States, if not the world.  Many believe the world is / has reached a “peak oil” scenario – worldwide production of conventional crude oil peaks in volume resulting in the rise of oil prices due to the lack of easily accessible oil – and energy costs will continue to rise over the coming decades.  The trend already may been seen in pricing costs.

In the past 7 years oil prices have moved from less than $30/barrel to almost $100/barrel while oil field discoveries are starting to slow and are coming from more remote locations than every before.  Add political and economic instability to the mix and it could be easy to see why prices would move upward.

Little does the general public know but the United States actually has roughly the third largest oil reserves in the world – welcome to Oil Sands.  This source of energy, oil specifically, is not what one would typically expect from oil – the whole gusher and drilling rig – rather oil is trapped in shale and sand which requires companies to utilize a separation process in order to gain access to the oil.  The problem with this procedure is cost.

Crude oil, historically, was at a price point that “normal” margins for Oil Companies when producing resources in the United States.  At $30 a barrel a company had a profit margin of roughly 11%.  Just for perspective, Microsoft’s profit margin in roughly 30% and Coke’s in about 20%.  The way oil companies were making their profit was on volume.

Due to the high cost of extraction cost of Oil Sands, at $30/barrel it was highly unprofitable for an oil company deal with this form of energy.  Essentially, the price of oil needs to be above $75/barrel in order for oil producers to even break even with Oil sands.  Now that energy costs are trending higher, it makes both fiscal and political sense to tap this resource.

So, let me ask you this – With an energy crisis, rising prices and the fact that the U.S. has 40 Billion barrels of estimated oil in sands; wouldn’t you think the government should be promoting the development of this energy?

Harry Reid does not.

He wants to continue limiting the use of this oil, making it difficult for companies to extract, as well as have access to the land on which the oil sits.  While it does not remove our focus from oil to clean energy, accessing this oil would help limit our exposure to foreign and possible hostile governments.  Isn’t that part of the reason for facing the energy crisis head on?

If we are indeed facing an energy crisis can someone, please, explain to me how this is in the United States best interests?

Just a week ago the Democrats and Republicans alike were under the impression Bacak Obama was going to have a problem with his fundraising efforts (I commented on that here) but the Obama camp released the August fundraising numbers – $66 million.

Now that the conventions are finished and there are 51 days left until the election, let’s see how both camps do raising money.

Very impressive on Obama’s part. As I said before, polls are one thing but money is something you cannot argue.