Sarah Palin sets the record straight in interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News

In this interview Sarah Palin clears up the clothes controversy in a most comprehensive manner. It is glaringly obvious that the liberal media and some Democrat politicians misrepresented the reality. She answers malicious allegations made by an anonymous aide concerning NAFTA and her alleged lack of geographical knowledge. She speaks about ugly attacks made on her and about their impact on her family. She discusses the failure of the media to correct false allegations made against her.

She discusses the possible reasons for the opposition of feminists and surmises that her strong pro-life position is at the root of their antagonism. She also speaks about her political future. Finally her friend outlines the truth in relation to the real Sarah Palin.

NY - Third Presidential Debate-McCain goes on the attack (Obama Company Taxation plans will send millions of jobs to Europe and Asia)

This debate featured sharper exchanges than the previous two. McCain was the more forceful of the two candidates and delved forensically into policy matters. Obama attempted to parry McCain attacks. This is a calculated strategy to avoid a detailed analysis of Obama policies many of which do not stand up to scrutiny especially in the current financial crisis. His promises of a middle class tax cut are hot air-incapable of being implemented in the current financial circumstances, without a spending freeze-which Obama opposes.

The debate opened with a discussion on taxation. John McCain stressed the need to reduce taxes and the necessity not to increase taxes on the likes of Joe Plumber. McCain opposed Obamas plans to increase company taxation on the basis of a jobs outflow to lower taxation destinations in Europe and Asia. Obama spoke about middle class tax cuts. McCain emphasized the necessity to reduce taxes on business to increase employment opportunities.

The next topic was the deficit. Both candidates spoke about the necessity of reducing the deficit. McCain was far more specific. He emphasized a spending freeze and detailed methods for balancing the budget. Obama was particularly weak on this topic. Obama opposed a spending freeze. Hence his proposals for a middle income tax cut go up in smoke. McCain emphasized that Obama has proposals for 860 billion dollars in extra spending.

Obama attempted to tie McCain to President Bush. John McCain said:”I am not President Bush.” John McCain said that Barack Obama had voted for two budgets, which increased taxes on those earning over 42,000 dollars. Obama denied this –not too convincingly.

The third segment featured negative campaigning. Both candidates criticized each others campaign strategies. Obama criticized comments at Sarah Palins rallies. McCain strongly defended her. He outlined how he had condemned any unfair comments in contrast to Obama who had singularly failed to do so. McCain referred to disgraceful happenings at Democratic rallies, which had largely gone unreported. He referred to outrageous comments by Democrat Congressman John Lewis who attempted to tie him to George Wallace. William Ayres and Acorn figured strongly. This may have damaged Obama. Obama failed to convince here.


The next topic was advisors and running mates.McCain listed Palin’s achievements in Alaska on energy, rooting out of corruption and balancing the budget. Obama defended Joe Biden. John McCain referred to Biden’s vote against the First Gulf War and a proposal to divide Iraq in three segments-both serious blunders.

Energy was the next topic featured. McCain was stronger on energy hammering Obama on nuclear and off shore drilling. Obama is opposed to more nuclear and off shore drilling.

Trade featured next with sharp exchanges on free trade. McCain caught Obama on trade with Colombia. McCain warned that to restrict free trade and to raise taxes is to trigger a depression. He is correct. NAFTA also figured here.

Health Plans figured next. Both candidates rehearsed the same arguments as in the previous two debates. On this occasion McCain explained clearly that 95% of Americans would be better off under his plan. He had failed to explain this fully previously.

Roe V Wade came up for discussion. McCain damaged Obama on the issue of partial birth abortion. Obama waffled on this issue. Obama supports tax payer funded abortions.

Education featured sharp exchanges. Obama appears content to throw money at the problem. McCain was stronger on reform of the system.

Obama's approach is governed by a desire to Spend, Spend, Spend. Greater state involvement, greater state involvement. The corollary of this is higher taxation and stagnation. Obama's coolness and smooth talking is no substitute for substance. Obama's policy of higher taxation on businesses is a godsend to workers in Europe and Asia. More American plants will move to these destinations to avoid higher taxation. His company taxation policy is economic lunacy. American workers vote for Obama if you wish to send your jobs to Europe and Asia. No wonder most Europeans are rooting for Obama.

Obama's biggest blunders

Clinton and Obama policies a recipe for economic stagnation

In the Democratic presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama attacked NAFTA.

Hillary Clinton said:

It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forward a very specific plan about what I would do, and it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards -- not side agreements, but core agreements; that we will enhance the enforcement mechanism; and that we will have a very clear view of how we're going to review NAFTA going forward to make sure it works, and we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers.

Barack Obama said:

I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.

Whilst NAFTA has undoubtedly contributed to job losses in Ohio and in other states it has also boosted jog creation in some sectors. Ohio is a major exporter to both Canada and Mexico. A withdrawal from NAFTA would hit many Ohio companies very hard and cost jobs. It would hit business confidence. In the long term protectionism will harm the US economy and encourage inefficiency. Free trade encourages efficiency and prosperity. Both Clinton and Obama are disingenuous. A withdrawal from NAFTA will not restore jobs lost in Ohio. They are cynically misleading the voters. If Obama and Clinton are really serious US business faces an uncertain future. In addition both have made promises totalling in excess of $800 billion dollars. The implications for US taxpayers are horrendous.