Silenciando escepticos

Tal parece que la administración Obama ha intentado silenciar a un escéptico de las políticas para controlar el calentamiento global.

El escéptico llamado Alan Carlin (ver su página aquí) escribió un informe contradiciendo las creencias ya establecidas sobre el calentamiento global.

Vale la pena leer el informe. Es largo, un poco técnico, pero sin duda controversial.

La tecnocracia "desinteresada" y "altruista"

La tecnocracia obamista no tiene problemas apoyar mas y mas rescates a Wall Street pero obvio...si han recibido millones y millones de dolares de ese sector económico.

Tecnocracia desinteresada y altruista (comparada con todos estos políticos corruptos)..si claro..solo en los libros de texto de economía.

Se acaba la obamanía?

Esta gráfica, del sitio web de la encuestadora Rasmussen, muestra en verde la tendencia de los que apoyan fuertemente a Obama y en rojo los que desaprueban fuertemente.

Como se ve en la gráfica los que lo apoyan fuertemente han caído unos 10 puntos desde el 20 de Enero(día de la posesión de Obama) pero los que los desaprueban fuertemente han aumentado casi 20 puntos.

En conclusión la luna de miel de Obama parece que fue bien corta (todavía no ha cumplido el hito de "los 100 días") dado un aumento tan importante de los que lo desaprueban fuertemente.

y según Rasmussen los datos completo de apoyo y rechazo son: "Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-three percent (43%) disapprove."

Links variados

1. Las triquinuelas de Obama I

2. Las contradicciones del Estado Colombiano (por un lado pico y placa y mayores impuestos de rodamiento, por otro lado subsidios para prestamos de compra de vehiculos)

3. Una nueva palabra en el diccionario: Obamatons

4. Un cambio estructural detras de la perdida masiva de empleos en Estados Unidos?

5. Mutualismo.org, blog libertario anti-capitalista

Otra mentira de Obama

Otra mentira que le pilla al nuevo gran líder del mundo libre, Obama I

Actualización: David Brooks comenta lo que esta sucediendo con la administración de Obama:

"President Obama has concentrated enormous power on a few aides in the West Wing of the White House. These aides are unrolling a rapid string of plans: to create three million jobs, to redesign the health care system, to save the auto industry, to revive the housing industry, to reinvent the energy sector, to revitalize the banks, to reform the schools — and to do it all while cutting the deficit in half."

Que es lo que esta haciendo Obama y la Fed?

Jeffrey Sachs lo explica de manera fácil:

"President Barack Obama’s economic team is now calling for an unprecedented stimulus of large budget deficits and zero interest rates to counteract the recession. These policies may work in the short term but they threaten to produce still greater crises within a few years. Our recovery will be faster if short-term policies are put within a medium-term framework in which the budget credibly comes back to balance and interest rates come back to moderate sustainable levels. "

Pero en realidad solo se esta aplicando "continuismo de políticas" como lo explica el mismo Sachs:

"Looking back to the late 1990s, there is little doubt that unduly large swings in macroeconomic policies have been a major contributor to our current crisis. The lessons of the high inflation of the 1970s had supposedly chastened policy makers against trying to fine-tune the economy. The quest for never-ending full employment had contributed to high inflation in that decade, which required years of economic pain to wring out of the system. Monetary policies thereafter were supposed to be “steady as she goes,” not trying to smooth out every fluctuation and business cycle in the economy.

During the decade from 1995 to 2005, then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan over-reacted to several shocks to the economy. When financial turbulence hit in 1997 and 1998—the Asian crisis, the Russian ruble collapse and the failure of Long-Term Capital Management—the Fed increased liquidity and accidentally helped to set off the dot-com bubble. The Fed eased further in 1999 in anticipation of the Y2K computer threat, which of course proved to be a false alarm. When the Fed subsequently tightened credit in 2000 and the dot-com bubble burst, the Fed quickly turned around and lowered interest rates again. The liquidity expansion was greatly amplified following 9/11, when the Fed put interest rates down to 1 percent and thereby helped to set off the housing bubble, which has now collapsed.

We need to avoid reckless short-term swings in policy. Massive deficits and zero interest rates might temporarily perk up spending but at the risk of a collapsing currency, loss of confidence in the government and growing anxieties about the government’s ability to pay its debts. That outcome could frustrate rather than speed the recovery of private consumption and investment. Deficit spending in a recession makes sense, but the deficits should remain limited (less than 5 percent of GNP) and our interest rates should be kept far enough above zero to avoid wild future swings...................

Most important, we should stop panicking. One of the reasons we got into this mess was the Fed’s exaggerated fear in 2002 and 2003 that the U.S. was following Japan into a decade of stagnation caused by deflation (falling prices). To avoid a deflation the Fed created a bubble. Now the bubble has burst, and we’ve ended up with the deflation we feared! Panics end badly, even panics of policy; more moderate policies will be safer in the medium term. "

Una nueva crisis o la prolongación de la actual se esta gestando con las medidas que se han venido tomando en ya casi dos años.

Obama y el mito de las pequeñas donaciones

Desde hace meses empezó a circular en los medios la idea de que la campaña de Obama se financiaba con pequeñas donaciones (que según los expertos en el tema son aquellas menores a 200 dolares).

Pues bien, era un mito (así como que Obama era el cambio). Lo descubrió la organización independiente y no-partidista llamada "campaign institute reform". Estos son algunos apartes del reporte:

"REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors
It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated. "The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."


Obama received about 80% more money from large donors (cumulative contributions of at least $1,000) than from small donors. While the large donors thus were responsible for much more of Obama's money than either his small or middle range group, he received somewhat less proportionally from large donors than did his rivals or predecessors. Forty-seven percent of Obama's money came from large donors compared to 56% for Kerry and 60% for both Bush and McCain. However, because Obama's 47% is based on a larger total, that means he also raised significantly more large-donor money in absolute terms than any of his rivals or predecessors.

Much of this money was raised the "old fashioned" way. Since only about 13,000 of those who started out small for Obama ended up crossing the $1,000 threshold, that means the bulk of Obama's $213 million in large-donor contributions during the primaries came from about 85,000 people who started out giving big and stayed there. Much of this large-donor money – perhaps close to a majority – came to the campaign through bundling methods initially perfected by Bush.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) – which in the absence of legally mandated disclosure had to use information provided by the campaigns – 561 "bundlers" had raised a minimum of $63 million for Obama by mid-August and 534 people had raised a minimum of $75 million for McCain. The bundlers undoubtedly were responsible for more than these amounts because the campaigns reported the bundlers in ranges and CRP's minimum totals were based conservatively on the low end of each range. A reasonable guess might estimate the real amount at about 50% above the minimum – the mid-point for each range – yielding a total of perhaps about $90 million for Obama as of mid-August and more than $100 million for McCain.

At the top of the bundlers were 47 of Obama's and 65 of McCain's who were listed by the campaigns in mid-August as being responsible for at least $500,000 each. In addition, Public Citizen lists 2,205 people as having contributed in their own names at least $25,000 to joint fundraising committees supporting Obama and 1,846 people as having made similar contributions to joint fundraising committees supporting McCain. "


Con todos los hechos que vienen sucediendo despues de la elección de Obama (o como en este caso, son revelados) me pregunto, si desde la luna de miel del nuevo emperador con la opinión pública de su pais y del mundo durará tanto como sus partidarios mas acerrimos lo esperan.

El "buen Obama"

He estado leyendo con detenimiento el programa o "plataforma" política de Obama. He encontrado buenas (o no tan malas ) ideas que vale la pena destacar teniendo en cuenta que estos son solo promesas:

1. Impuestos:El programa de Obama propone varios recortes o deducciones de impuestos tanto a personas como negocios:

• Promete eliminar impuestos a las ganancias de capital de pequeños y nuevos negocios.
• Promete reducir impuestos a la clase media y los trabajadores.
• Promete reducir impuestos a las empresas que creen trabajos en Estados Unidos y no muevan operaciones al extranjero
• Promete reducir impuestos a las empresas que inviertan en investigación y desarrollo
• Promete reducir impuestos a las familias con hijos para cubrir los gastos de manutención
• Promete otras deducción o reducciones de impuestos para salud, inversión en energía y otras cosas.

Lo bueno digamos es que Obama tambien tiene su lado de "recorta impuestos". Lo malo es que son recortes selectivos, distorsionadores de las actividad económica y discriminatorios. Son básicamente subsidios. Pero se le abona el interes por reducir la carga tributaria, aunque lamentablemente, no de manera igual para todos.

De todas formas, promete una reducción neta de impuestos en toda la economía acompañada de reducción de gastos:

"Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit. "

2. Retirada de Irak: Promete una "retirada responsable". Sin embargo, la retirada ya la comenzó Bush así que su propuesta es mas una continuación de la política actual.

3. Sistema de Salud:

• Promete permitir la importación de medicinas desde paises extranjeros. En este tema la administración Bush ha sido proteccionista, probablemente para proteger los intereses de las farmaceúticas que le venden medicinas caras a los Estadounidenses, en teoría, para poder recuperar los costos de investigación y desarrollo
• Promete apoyar el uso de drogas genéricas. En este aspecto parece que va a ser anti-propiedad intelectual. Excelente.
• Promete incrementar la competencia en el sector de seguros de salud aunque no especifíca claramente como

En general en el tema de sistema de salud, Obama parece estar lejos de una nacionalización, aunque sin duda aumentará el intervencionismo. Sin embargo, al permitir la importación de medicina y reducir la protección de la protección intelectual en ese campo, se esta poniendo del lado de los pacientes y de la libertad económica. Además, esto ayudará a bajar los costos.

4. Responsabilidad Fiscal:

• Propone que cualquier nuevo programa o adición de gasto esté acompaña de una reducción de gasto en otra parte o de un incremento de impuestos.
• Propone reducir los gastos en "auxilios" a los niveles de hace 1993.
• Proponer que todos los contratos del gobierno superiores a 25,000 dolares (una suma bastante baje) sean por subasta.
• Promete reducir exenciones de impuestos a grupos especiales. Sin embargo, esto se contradice con sus políticas de impuestos (ver arriba el primer punto)

5. Relaciones exteriores: No hay mucho aquí para destacar como bueno, pero en general promete una postura menos agresiva contra Iran y no continuar la política de "secretismo" de la administración Bush.

6. "Guerra contra las drogas": Solo encontré esto:

"Expand Use of Drug Courts
Obama and Biden will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior."

Muy pobre. Esperaba mas libertarianismo en este aspecto por parte de Obama

7. Inmigración: Solo dos promesas para destacar:

• Improve Our Immigration System
  Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
• Bring People Out of the Shadows
  Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Definitivamente no es anti-inmigración, creo que esta bien en este aspecto, pero esperaba un poco mas de liberalismo en este aspecto.

Por el momento, estas son las promesas o ideas de Obama que veo buenas o relativamente no tan malas .

Despues iré comentando la larga lista de malas ideas.

Carta de un pequeño empresario a Obama

Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start as a result of privilege. They are the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our countrys' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and would not demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you and Joe Biden. combined (don't you just hate google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American... www.cmillerdrilling.com

La hipocresia de Obama

Obama se opone a los vouchers escolares, y propone mas de lo mismo, mas dinero para la educación estatal. Por supuesto, de su propio dinero, prefiere enviar sus hijos a escuelas privadas. El si ejerce libre elección, pero no le gusta que los demás lo hagan

Obama critica la ambición de los bancos que ha llevado a la crisis hipotecarias en Estados Unidos. Por supuesto, no tiene problemas en ser uno de los que mas recibe dinero de unas de esas compañias que terminaron quebrando.

La hipocresía de Mccain seguro es igual o mayor. Pero Obama ha ilusionado mas a las masas con el "cambio" y resulta siendo igual a los políticos tradicionales.

Cualquier error se paga.....

La campaña de Mccain obviamente no iba "perdonar" el lapsus de Obama, que intencional o no, fácilmente es interpretado como una burla contra Palin.

Esto no va ayudar a Obama

Obama continua moviendose a la derecha

Ya no parece tan entusiasta de eliminar los recortes de impuestos de Bush

Al paso que vamos las ideas de Mccain y Obama no serán muy diferentes, y la elección se definirá por otros aspectos.

El efecto Palin

En este momento en Intrade, Obama esta en 53% perdiendo 7-8 puntos de donde estuvo muchas semanas (60-61%).Mccain logicamente avanza a 45 pasando de donde estuvo varias semanas (39%).Mccain tuvo sin duda exito en revertir el "post-convention bounce" de Obama.
El americano medio parece adorar a Palin. Y según este articulo, ahora Mccain tiene la ventaja en las mujeres blancas

Lo mas seguro es decir que vamos a tener una elección como la del año 2000,super reñida. Lo que significa que ninguno de los dos candidatos van a tener un mandato claro que los cambios que dicen que van a ser, y les va tocar, trabajar con el partido contrario e implementar reformas tímidas. Es decir, la retórica de "cambio" de ambos, no pasará de eso.


Vale la pena hacer un analisis de lo que ha venido pasando con los candidatos.

Mccain se ha movido a la derecha:

1. Hace dos o un año fue el autor de una ley pro-inmigrante con nada mes que Ted kennedy (super odiado por la derecha) que finalmente no pasó. Ahora es como mínimo menos pro inmigrante

2. No era anti-aborto ni anti-gay. Ahora por lo menos es anti-aborto.

3. Voto en contra de los recortes de impuestos de Bush diciendo que favoreciana los ricos (la misma retorica de los democratas). Ahora dice que los mantendrá y que hará mas recortes

4. Creo leyes contra el calentamiento global y era de los republicanos mas ambientalistas. Esta en contra de perforar en Alaska, ahora esta a favor.

Obama, mientras tanto tambien se mueve a la derecha:

1. Hace unos dias le reconoció a O'reilly que el "surge" (incremento de tropas) en Irak ha funcionado

2. Ayer dijo que dada la mala situación de la econonomía demoraría la eliminación de los recortes de impuesto de Bush

3. Recientemente se disculpó por unas declaraciones sobre el aborto que lo ponían como medio a favor

4. Unas personas en un pequeño pueblo de Ohio le preguntaron si iba a controlar las armas, y dijo de forma explícita que no lo haría.En temas de libre comercio, política exterior tambien se ha movido a la derecha.

Ambos corren riesgos con estas estrategias. Mccain puede perder democratas conservadores (como los que apoyaron a Reagan) y a independientes quienes pueden irse a votar por Obama o Bob Barr del partido libertario. Obama puede perder los votantes mas izquierdistas quienes pueden ir a votar por Ralph Nader.

Cada estrategia corresponde a logicas diferentes.Mccain necesitaba ganarse a las bases conservadores y cristianas del partido repúblicano que no lo veían con buenos ojos por ser demasiado liberal para su gusto y por hacer alianzas con democratas como Ted Kennedy para sacar leyes.De hecho,en el año 2000, cuando se disputo la candidatura republicana con Bush pelío con los pastores evangelicos y los llamó "intolerantes".Obama, luego de moverse a la izquierda para ganarse a las bases del partido democráta, necesitaba moverse al centro para conquistar a democratas conservadores y para ganarse a republicanos liberales/moderados y a los independientes.

Pero en esencia ambos demuestran que para el político profesional, las ideas son apenas un medio para obtener el poder, nunca la razón de ser de la política.

Finalmente cuando un político profesional llega al poder termina maniatado por todas las alianzas y apoyos de los grupos de intereses a su favor. Termina siendo, como decía John Kerry, un "sirviente" de estos grupos.

La experiencia de Obama vs La experiencia de Palin

Es increíble que los democrátas hay cometido el error de críticar a Sarah Palin, por falta de experiencia, dado que esa es la principal debilidad de Obama. Se exponen a que Newt Gingrich les hablé duro:

Sarah Palin es la unica candidata en ambas campañas, que tiene experiencia ejecutiva, manejando una gobernación con un presupuesta de 11.2 mil millones dolares y casi 29,000 empleados.

Que atacar a Sarah Palin por su falta de experiencia es mala estrategia, lo comienzan a decir columnistas gringos a favor de Obama

La nación de Obama

La derecha se viene con todo contra Obama y sacan un libro que se convierte en bestseller.

Quien sabe si esto solo lo lean los anti-obamistas convencidos, pero el caso es que Mccain ha empezado a liderar algunas encuestas.

Lo unico cierto es que la carrera presidencial en Estados Unidos esta mas cerrada de lo que muchos pensaban o deseaban.

Mccain el anti-intelectual?

Dice Alejandro Gaviria: "Esta semana, John McCain acusó a Barack Obama de pertenecer al mundo ilusorio y arrogante de Paris Hilton. La respuesta de Hilton no se hizo esperar. En un video de dos minutos, que ya ha sido visto por millones de internautas, Hilton hace gala no de su juventud, no de su belleza, no de su fortuna, sino de su inteligencia. En un tono arrogante, de caricatura, Hilton se burla de McCain, exhibe sin tapujos su pertenencia a la nueva élite cognitiva. El video es una denuncia elocuente de la retórica anti-intelectual que viene promoviendo, con inocultable oportunismo, la campaña de McCain. Paris Hilton, quien lo creyera, capturó, en dos minutos, la esencia del discurso del candidato republicano."

Yo estoy en desacuerdo con la percepción que los comerciales de Mccain que intentaron mostrar a Obama como una celebridad, sea anti-intelectualismo. Todo lo contrario.

La idea del comercial era mostrar a Obama como una "celebridad", como frivolo, superficial, como alguien parecido a Paris Hilton, la socialité por antonomasia.

Tambien iba a explotar la asociación que existe en el imaginario del gringo medio derechista de que hollywood (los artistas) son izquierdistas (en realidad hay artistas de todas las corrientes politicas, pero la mayoria parecen ser izquierdistas).Y Hollywood se asocia con elitismo, pero tambien con personas sin la moral cristiana que tipicamente le importa a buena parte de la base del partido republicano.

Por otro lado, tambien explota el tremendo papayazo que dio Obama hace unos meses cuando se refirió a la gente de los pueblos de Ohio, "como amargados que se refugiaban en las armas, la xenofobia,etc". Alguien grabó esas palabras y las filtró a la prensa. Esas palabras son lo peor que ha podido decir un candidato democrata en una campaña presidencial.

Finalmente podría ser que los comerciales tuvieron exito. En la encuesta de Rasmussen de ayer, Obama y Mccain siguen empatados. Pero por primera vez veo en esa encuesta (la veo todos los dias) que Mccain le saca un punto a Obama cuando incluyen a los "leaners"(personas que se declaran indecisos pero que dicen inclinarse por alguno de los dos candidatos)

Y si lo de Georgia continua escalando, podria recomenzar una nueva guerra fría, donde no veo al gringo medio deseoso de votar por un "liberal", una "paloma" como Obama con solo dos años de experiencia en el congreso federal,ninguna credencial en política exterior. El gringo medio creería que va a preferir al heroe de guerra, al "halcon".

En todo caso, la carrera presidencial en USA esta mas competida de lo que muchos pensabamos.

Hipocresía

Es increíble la hipocresía de los políticos y la capacidad de engañar a tanta gente.

Barack Obama el candidato del "cambio", el supuesto outsider de Washington, alejado de los grupos de intereses, esta fuertemente asociado a rico agroindustriales del etánol, que por cierto, es un pésimo sustituto de los combustibles fósiles y probablemente causa mas daño al ambiente (y curiosamente, Al Gore recientemente adhirió a Obama).

Por supuesto, su principal contrincante probablemente es peor en este aspecto. Pero Mccain no se vende con una retórica del "cambio" ni usa un discurso anti-sistema o anti-corporaciones.

La verdad llegué a pensar que Obama no era un político tradicional. Pensé que podría pecar de inocente o de muy izquierdista("liberal"). Pero que en general era sincero
Decepcionante.

Mccain se trepa?

Ahora mas que nunca parece que Mccain pasa a tomar la delantera, aunque no por mucho, en las encuestas presidenciales de Estados Unidos.

Lo que no me queda claro es porque estan prefiriendo a Mccain a pesar de la guerra de Irak, la cual este incluso continua apoyando.

Cual es el factor que le parece estar dando a Mccain la ventaja?

Sera la experiencia?

Elecciones en USA

La contienda entre Obama y Clinton parece que va a continuar por largo rato. Clinton ganó en Ohio y Rhode Island. Obama ganó Vermont. Pero en estos momentos Clinton esta ganando en Texas por 2 puntos a Obama. Como los delegados igual se reparten proporcionalmente, en Texas prácticamente quedarían empatados en delegados.

Mientras tanto, en el partido republicando ya Mccain aseguró definitivamente la nominación, así que puede sentarse a que Obama y Clinton se desgasten entre ellos.