Jay Allen's Blog

Both candidates were a bit unsteady articulating their thoughts throughout the first half of the second presidential debate. However, both candidates had outstanding answers on foreign policy.

McCain's best moment... it was clear that McCain was best prepared to talk about Russia. His answer was clear and concise (more so than any of his other answers) - and served as damage control for Sarah Palin's recent, bumbling answers about Russia and Putin rearing his head over Alaska.

Obama's best moment... Obama clearly scored a knockout during the most contentious part of the debate related to Pakistani sovereignty. McCain said "talk softly, but carry a big stick" and suggested that Obama was disclosing sensitive military strategies with Pakistan. Obama firmly stated that when found in Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden will be killed by Pakistan or killed by the US. The Obama knockout came when he made a mockery of McCain's "talk softly" comment. "Sen. McCain, is the guy who sang, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,' who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of 'speaking softly.' This is the person who, after we hadn't even finished Afghanistan said, 'Next up, Baghdad.'"

Obama clearly won this debate. What are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Did Obama cheat on his wife with a rich, thieving, drug addict? No. But John McCain did.

There has been a lot of talk about with whom Obama associates? The closest association a person should have is with their spouse. Cindy McCain admitted to stealing pills to support her drug habit. (Read more at Phoenix New Times). And it should have been obvious to a casual observer that Mrs. McCain was high on some sort of tranquilizer when she introduced her husband at the Republican National Convention last month. I am sure many of you would argue about this assertion, but if you applied her "glazed eyes" to anyone living in the projects - you would say that person is "high".

So, here's a quick look at McCain's two closest associates...
 * McCain spouse #1 - McCain cheated on her with a rich, thieving, drug addict
 * McCain spouse #2 - Rich, thieving, drug addict and friend of Charles Keating

And McCain's guilt by association...
 * Both Cindy and John McCain are linked to Charles Keating.
 * John McCain is linked to former Nazi collaborators.
 * John McCain sleeps with a rich, thieving, drug addict.

Any politician has skeletons in their closet. So, why not agree that both Obama and McCain have been linked to bad people and move on to the economy?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

During an interview 10 years ago, John McCain said Osama Bin Laden was not a "bad guy". The interview was conducted by Mother Jones. McCain's exact words were - "You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before... Next thing you know, well, we’ve declared to the terrorists that we’re going to strike them wherever they live. That’s fine. But what’s next?"

In 2008, it seems that McCain's advanced age is to blame for his bad judgment (picking Palin, suspending campaign, etc.). However, with those reckless statements from then 62-year-old McCain about Bin Laden illustrate his natural lack of judgment.

Is McCain's bad judgment age related or is it simply inherent to McCain?

Best regards,
Jay

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

Have you ever heard of Fox News, CNN, Newsweek, or The Washington Post? If you have, then you're not like Governor Sarah Palin.

Last night on the CBS Evening News, Palin was asked where she gets her news. "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media," Then when asked for examples she said "Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years."

It is very sad for anyone in this country above the age of 15 to not be able to name a source of news. If a person were asked this same question during a job interview and came up with Palin's answer, they wouldn't get the job.

She can kill a moose and produce a cute smile when she lies, but she can't answer a simple question. A vote for Palin is not a vote against the democrats, it is a vote against the future of our country.

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?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Today's telecast of The McLaughlin Group showed 10 of the biggest losers from the current mess on Wall Street.  9 of the 10 could be described as friends of Secretary Henry Paulson and the other one is Paulson himself.  Here's the list biggest CEO losers based on their personal portfolio of company stock...

Maurice Greenberg - Former CEO AIG    
Jan '07 - $1.25 Billion | Sep '08 - $50 Million (96.0% Loss)
    
Henry Paulson, Former CEO Goldman Sachs    
1/07 - $809 Million | 9/08 - $523 Million (35.4% Loss)
    
Daniel Mudd, Former CEO Fannie Mae    
1/07 - $26 Million | 9/08 - $476k (98.2% Loss)
    
Richard Syron, Former CEO Freddie Mac    
1/07 - $11 Million | 9/08 - $130k (98.8% Loss)
    
Martin Sullivan, CEO AIG    
1/07 - $3.2 Million | 9/08 - $173k (94.6% Loss)
    
John Thain, CEO Merrill Lynch    
1/07 - $28 Million | 9/08 - $16 Million (42.9% Loss)
    
Richard Fuld Jr. - Former CEO Lehman Brothers    
1/07 - $827 Million | 9/08 - $2.3 Million (99.7% Loss)
    
John Mack - CEO Morgan Stanley    
1/07 - $225 Million | 9/08 - $80 Million (64.4% Loss)
    
Charles Prince III - Former CEO CITIGROUP    
1/07 - $89 Million | 9/08 - $33 Million (62.9% Loss)
    
James Cayne - Former CEO Bear Stearns    
1/07 - $1.1 Billion | 9/08 - $61 Million (94.5% Loss)

It is undeniable that $700 Billion will help Paulson and his friends' portfolios to rebound. Do you think that the bailout is going help the average American family as much as it will Paulson's friends?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

There has been a great deal of discussion this week about what Barack Obama and John McCain are paid to do. No one would argue against the fact that Obama and McCain are paid by taxpayers to serve as senators. It is also a fact that they have both been paid hundreds of millions of dollars by those same taxpayers to campaign to become president. They both have far more influence on their respective parties now as presidential nominees than they ever did. As nominees they have cameras following every move they make and recording every word they say. Given the vast amount of media attention (and the advent of the cellular telephone), what logic supports the need for either one of them to go to Washington for this or any other matter for the next 38 days? Their influence on fellow senators is much more important than their single votes in the senate.

Another idea... many people to whom John McCain could not relate are poor and they must work 2 jobs. Is John McCain too good to work 2 jobs - senator and presidential candidate?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

According to the Associated Press, 3 years ago, Sarah Palin was blessed to be free from witchcraft.  Some people might defend Palin by translating "witchcraft" to mean "the devil".  However, the fact is, witchcraft should be about as foreign to McCain's base (i.e. Christian Conservatives) as the Nation of Islam.

Let's recap - Two monumentally bad headlines for Palin in two days...
1) McCain has suspended his campaign, because Palin can't run it.
2) She believes in witchcraft.

So, she's got a couple of negative marks in the past couple of days, but by golly, she can still blow a moose's head off.

Can anyone honestly still support Palin?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

According to several published reports, John McCain is suspending his campaign and does not want to debate Obama in 2 days.  His excuse is that he wants to focus on the economic crisis.  I think we can all agree we're facing a global economic crisis.  However, what could McCain do with his time on Friday night that will be so great for our economy that he can't spare a couple of hours to debate Obama?  Nothing.

The fact is, he is weak on the economy and knows that debating Obama this week, with current economic headlines, might cost him the election.

What are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

In conjunction with this week's United Nations General Assembly, Sarah Palin is meeting with the Presidents of Afghanistan and Columbia.  Based on many blogs, this country has fallen head over heals for this politician.  So, it would seem reasonable, that she would want to demonstrate her executive abilities and worldliness by having a Q&A with reporters... She is not.  The Associated Press sums it up in a headline "Palin bans reporters from meetings with leaders."

After a month as McCain's #2 and only 2 soft interviews, don't you think Palin should answer a few more questions?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Senator John McCain, the maverick, as some of you may know has several former lobbyists serving as top advisors in his campaign. Despite risking the appearance of hypocrisy, McCain tries to convince voters that he wants to eliminate the influence of lobbyists in Washington.

McCain eliminating lobbyists seems very unlikely. Consider the selection of Cheney as Bush's VP - Bush gave Cheney a high ranking position in his campaign (selecting his Vice President) as a result Cheney somehow managed to assume this high ranking position. So, it seems obvious that a high ranking campaign advisor to McCain (i.e. lobbyist) will also be given a high ranking position in the White House.

Given this context, Sen. Barack Obama delivered a blatant, entertaining statement today in Grand Junction, CO - "It's great that he now wants to talk about putting corporate lobbyists in their place. But he needs to explain why he put seven of them in charge of his campaign. If you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska."

What are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Palin sure sounded confident with a speech on a teleprompter/in hand, but after 9+ days as McCain's #2, she has still not shown her face on an interview.  What kind of "pit bull" is this scared of the media? I suppose McCain's "spinmeisters" are working hard to help her explain why she originally supported the bridge to nowhere.

In case you haven't read any specific quotes to illustrate Palin's hypocrisy... in an October 2, 2006 interview with the Ketchikan Daily News, conducted before she was elected governor Palin stated "We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative".  Now she likes to talk about how she opposes wasteful spending.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

In her VP acceptance speech, Gov. Sarah Palin proved that she speaks fluent English - even better than "W".  However, she is the new Michael Moore of the GOP - every comment about the Democratic ticket was taken out of context.  The biggest question she needed to answer was about her knowledge of foreign policy. She spent less than 2 minutes rattling off the names of Russia, Venezuela, and Iran to "demonstrate" her knowledge of foreign policy.  Palin proved she can read a teleprompter, but did not prove she will make an effective Vice President.

What did you think of her speech?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Propaganda on MSNBC is the exception, propaganda on Fox News is the rule.

According to all recognized demographic research on cable news networks - MSNBC has the most educated audience (therefore, the audience will see through any glaring displays of propaganda) and CNN is second in education of its audience. FoxNews is #1 in propaganda based on YouTube results at 9:25p on 9/1/08.*

*After reading Simon Conway's blog "MSNBC clearly no longer news" - a logical, concise article, but contrary to what I believe and to what research proves, I researched cable network propaganda videos listed on YouTube. The following table shows the results:
YouTube Search Phrase- # of Results
fox news propaganda- 688
cnn propaganda - 490
msnbc propaganda- 194
Simply put, Fox News shows 3.5 times more propaganda than MSNBC.

Furthermore, there is some level of propaganda on every network in news and entertainment.  If you listen to only Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, anything but Fox News will seem like left wing propaganda.

What are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

With so much talk about Senator Obama being an "elitist" it's certainly worth noting that Senator McCain has more homes than he can count - according to the Washington Post and several other sources - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/21/dems_pounce_on_mccain_admissio.html. How can someone who doesn't know how many homes he owns have any ability to understand or relate to the bottom 99% of Americans?

Since "W" enjoys holding hands with Middle Eastern leaders, the following should not come as a surprise...

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080502493.html?hpid=topnews) is reporting that while the United States continues to go deeper into debt and continues to pump billions of dollars into Iraq, Iraq will show a budget surplus of fifty billion dollars.  Just last week it was reported that the United States will have a budget deficit of nearly a half-trillion dollars (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMSVWqL3tikhx7L_ompt0hDXO-5AD92792JG1).

What do you think?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net