Effigies

Okay, so within a week we have two completely separate effigy-hangings of candidates -- one of Barack Obama and the other of Sarah Palin. The only difference is that the Secret Service arrested two people for the Obama one, and asked nicely for the Sarah Palin one to be pulled down with no legal or criminal consequences. Why is it that hate crimes are only able to be perpetrated against minorities... It was no big deal with Bush or Palin effigies, but hang the Messiah and there will be Hell to pay. One question though, if he's the Messiah... shouldn't he welcome it as inevitable?

Media Bias Caused by Campaign Bias?

Coming off my entry on double standards, I will add this new story to the mix. The Obama-Biden campaign has recently cut off all media contact with an Orlando network, because they asked him difficult questions. Here is the news story. The interview was actually fair questions, focusing on the two major statements that the campaign has made in the past weeks -- The "Spreading the wealth around" comment and the "Mark my words" warning. It also asked about ACORN (which Biden lied about). Below is the interview that caused their campaign to cut off communications simply because they did not like the very good questions that they asked.



Now, I generally try to give the media the benefit of the doubt, not denouncing them for every little thing. However, as this election has progressed, it has become clear who many in the media are pulling for. From The View, which asked Obama the hard-hitting question "Are you related to Brad Pitt?" to the New York Times that says a deep connection to William Ayers is a "distraction," while running front page stories on both Palin's wardrobe budget and Cindy McCain's previous legal drug addiction (also while ignoring Obama's admitted drug use). Responsible journalists should be willing to ask these tough questions, despite the fact that their paper or studio endorses one candidate or the other. As the Obama press release stated: "There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public." These questions were using the words of the candidates themselves (and the Marx quotation was fair, because it is simply another characterization of "Spreading the Wealth Around").

They were giving Biden the opportunity to explain himself and his running mate, because these are the statements that are on the tip of the tongue for the other side. How did Biden react? He asked whether the questions were "jokes," then the campaign shunned the news network. Let's see, is there another news network that this campaign has shunned in the past... oh yeah, how about Fox News Channel. Some of the top news anchors in the business are on that network (Greta Van Susteren, Brit Hume, and Bret Baier) and this campaign, along with the rest of the Democratic Party, shunned the primary debate that was hosted by this network (with no provocation, except that of moveon.org) and Obama has only granted one interview on this network -- to O'Reilly, and simply because regardless of what is said during the interview, O'Reilly (who has huge ratings for some reason) backs off criticism for the most part afterward. Why is this? Well, it seems clear now that tough questions will be asked and the campaign does not agree that they should be "vetted" by a media that asks questions which they do not like, nor to which they have already prepared talking point answers. But with this recent development, it seems to be the clear message that if a news network wants to have an interview, they will not ask tough questions. I think McCain should make this a campaign point, and take at least 3 more interviews with them in the next 10 days, stating that he's "not afraid of tough questions."

UPDATE: Here's another one...

Double Standards in the Election Process

Okay, here is a new analysis of this election cycle that concludes that there is an intense double standard when it comes to corruption, temperament, and other things in the Democratic Party.

First of all, let's take a look at an issue that has come to the forefront again in a recent New York Times article... drug use. Okay, first the Republicans. George W. Bush has been raked over the coals because he "didn't deny" using cocaine or marijuana (despite the fact that he did not admit it either, he simply refused to answer the questions). The NYT article calls out Cindy McCain for being addicted to prescription painkillers (an addiction that many people are subject to, and a "legal" drug addiction). The story drew attention to the fact that she stole drugs from her company. Okay, that's pretty bad, and deserves some kind of attention. But when attention is paid to this but not to, say, Obama's ADMITTED Cocaine and Marijuana use (felonies by the way), there is a problem. Obama admitted use of cocaine in his first autobiography, "Dreams from my Father." People used Bush's alleged drug use early on to try to disqualify him from being the President. What about Obama? Obama is already only barely qualified, if that. Drug use, if he were a Republican, would certainly be the focus of a campaign against him that would prevent him from taking office.

The second issue is, looking down the long list... how about racial slurs? Let's see a couple of Republican "racial slurs" via YouTube:

Below is George Allen's "Macaca" comment, which for all intents and purposes lost him his reelection, despite being the more qualified, better choice for the Senate seat. It is also speculated that this tiny comment removed him from consideration for the Presidential nomination.



And here is another "racial slur," that has been criticized recently in the current campaign.



These two examples are not an exhaustive list of "racist statements" that have been highly criticized since they were made. There are scores of other "phony controversies," including Trent Lott's complements of Strom Thurmond (on his birthday mind you). However, Obama, Biden, and surrogates have their own set of racist statements that are more overtly racist, which have been completely ignored. Videos are below:

Here is Joe Biden's amazing assessment of Delaware 7-11's and Dunkin Donuts. He says that you can't go there without a slight Indian accent, and what is better is that he's talking to an Indian person. Watch.



This next video is from earlier in the campaign, when Obama clarified his assessment of his grandmother's "racial animosity." This is by far the most racist thing that has been said in this election, and no one seems to care, because the Messiah was speaking.



Okay, where was the outrage then, and where is it now? If there were actually a media of note these days, there would be an investigation into how these racist views formed (say, Obama's connections to Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger), or even actual coverage of such views on the news. These should be very troubling to people who seek "hope" and "change." Imagine the fallout that could come from 4 years of a black-supremacist President. There I said it. Barack Obama is a black-supremacist who submits to the doctrine of Black Liberation Theology and entitlement for events that never actually occurred to him.

The third and final (for the purposes of keeping this relatively short) issue will be "hate." The media has been obsessed with a few people in McCain rallies that have been emotional over the election. They say that these are "overwhelmingly angry" rallies that spew forth hate. Okay, there was a person that called Obama a terrorist (because he "pals around with" Bill Ayers). There was also a person who shouted "Treason," which, although not at the right part of the rally, is somewhat true, since the Iraqi Foreign Minister has come out saying that Obama tried to prevent a troop withdrawal plan until he was President... that is interference in national security affairs, which is cause for accusations of treason. Also, the media reported hearing someone say "Kill Him," but the Secret Service has already said that these accusations are unfounded (Here's the Story).

Now to the Democrats' hateful activities this year. They have burned McCain Palin signs, called a 7th Grader "racist" for wearing a McCain Palin shirt, called for a boycott of a Maryland hotel that dared to put a McCain-Palin sign alongside its Obama-Biden sign, vandalized Republican offices and homes, called Palin "Pontius Pilate" on multiple occasions, said that Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks," called all of Western Pennsylvanians "racist" and "redneck" (PS: Vote against Murtha if you have a chance...), called McCain supporters and friends "terrorists," called critics of Obama "terrorists," predicted riots if Obama loses, and even physically assaulted at least one McCain supporter. Below is a video of McCain supporters who dared to march through the streets of New York City. (UPDATE: They have also shot at the home of a McCain campaigner). "Get in their face" politics are getting out of hand I think. UPDATE 2: The picture on the left is from a New York "art" exhibit, in which people can get a photo of themselves pointing a gun at a cardboard cut-out of Sarah Palin and her youngest baby. Like the article where the picture comes from, I ask you "What if this were Barack Obama.



Going back in time we have the sheer vitriol against the Bush administration, including but not limited to calling HIM a terrorist and burning him in effigy. While I don't like Bush, and didn't long before he was even elected, no President ever deserves this kind of treatment and disrespect. See one of the many videos below.



The actions of protesters of the Iraq War and the Bush administration in general have been completely over-the-top. But why is this kind of thing acceptable for one side, and not for another. The Republican rally anger has paled in comparison to that of Democrats toward McCain. But Republican crowds are "dangerous" and nothing is said about Democrat crowds.

Why should these double standards in politics, media, and just everyday life be allowed to continue?

Colin Powell

Colin Powell endorsed Obama today on "Meet the Press," and gave a seemingly reasoned account of why he wants to vote for him over his friend "for 25 years" McCain. However, he neglects many facts in his degradation of the Republican Party, and in his assessment of the Democrats and Obama as better, which I will now try to fully parse.

He begins by stating that both candidates are distinguished Americans who are patriotic and dedicated to the welfare of our country. First of all, what distinctions does Senator Obama actually have? He has been a Illinois Senator where he voted "present" more than 100 times; he was a US Senator where his sole accomplishment was running for President and duping the Democrats into picking him instead of Hillary. He is chairman of a subcommittee that he has never convened. What has he actually DONE in these positions to make him "distinguished" besides hold the seat? The second point that is wrong with this statement is that he is "Patriotic." Every single speech he has given has been negative toward America -- he denounced us in front of his inflated German audience even. He always speaks as if this country were the worst in the history of the world and that we should drastically change in the direction of the European countries that cannot compete with us. Just last week he scrapped the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance at a rally in order to have another speaker -- What an America-loving Patriot!

Powell then discussed the direction the party has taken, a turn "right" in the past few years. That's funny, Bush is not a conservative in the way that most people want, he has a social view with which we tend to agree, but he is a spender and his fiscal liberalism is coming out more and more as he discusses the need to forcibly nationalize banks and socialize the economy. republicans even nominated the most liberal Republican Senator to be the President of the United States. How is that a right turn that troubles you? We conservatives HATE McCain's policies in many ways, but again he agrees with us like Bush agrees with us. The turn seems to be in our energy over Sarah Palin's appointment, because she more closely resembles what we want in a candidate. Most people do not seem to see the huge difference between the time before Palin and after Palin on this ticket. The difference is that Republicans are finally involved at all in the process. Before, we were voting for two Democrats, one leaning right, the other toppling left. With Palin, who will be discussed later on, we finally have at least SOMEONE who shares our core beliefs, be them the compassionate beliefs of Bush or the Conservative beliefs of Reagan. (And notice that Obama is pandering to the crowd... he even quotes Reagan, but he is lying through his teeth).

Powell then gave the advice that he gave to Obama, which may either be a talking point from Obama or may have been the creation of a talking point for Obama. He said "You have to prove whether you have enough experience, or whether you have the 'judgment.'" Judgment has been Obama's word for "my inexperience, knowledge and eloquence solely from a teleprompter, and having to study really hard for debates doesn't matter at all." And Powell seems to accept the premise that someone with no experience, who criticizes pretty much everything that Powell did in his life, good or bad, as bad, has enough "judgment" to be President. Therefore, an endorsement of Obama is him basically saying "my life and service to this country was all for the wrong reasons and I should not have done it." It especially states that his time as Secretary of State was wasted and detrimental, which only Democrats and those countries that dislike us actually believe.

He then discusses the past 6-7 weeks of the campaign, the "final exam" as he calls it. He says McCain was "unsure" as to how to deal with it. At least he tried! Obama left the job to the "real" Senators, McCain included, waited for the plan to be made before even attempting to think about the issue. He also derided McCain, who was only trying to do his actual job, as "playing politics," while McCain was not actually responding to attacks. Then he says that McCain had a "different approach" to the economic problem everyday. What about Obama? Once he started making suggestions for solutions (when his surrogates had finally come up with it for him), he changed nearly every day as well. Neither candidate handled and is handling the economic crisis in the right way. Even the current administration is fumbling around with it, and they have actual power... not just words.

He then made his way to Governor Palin. He does not believe that she is ready to be President of the United States. Well, guess what, she won't be President. The job of Vice President is to "take up" the Presidency in the event that the actual President cannot fulfill his duties. She will not BE President on day one, and even if she were, she has just as much experience (if not more), probably a better temperament, and an actual understanding of the American people as a whole (minus perhaps the Hollywood types who believe the exact opposite of her... and are the loud voices that falsely lead people to believe that they are mainstream) -- all things that Obama struggles with.

I keep thinking back to Newt Gingrich on MSNBC the night of Lieberman's Convention speech, slamming that stupid reporter (Ron Allen) who merely asked him the Democrat's talking points question: "[Her resume] is stronger than Barack Obama's. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She's has been a real governor, he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaska National Guard, he hasn't. She was a whistle blower who defeated an incumbent mayor, he has never once shown that kind of courage. She was a whistle blower who turned in the Chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I've never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don't know of a single thing Obama's done except talk and write. And I'd like you to tell me one thing you think Senator Obama has done." And the reporter cut the conversation without a response. This is a resume of elections tougher than Obama's entire career. Obama has not actually dealt with an unfavorable media, with the possible exception of Fox News, but this is only on two fronts -- 1.) Sean Hannity, and 2.) the fact that Fox News actually reports negative stories about BOTH candidates. Obama said that if it weren't for Fox News, he would be 20 points ahead of McCain. However, if it weren't for MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Time Magazine, and scores of other publications, he would never have broken 30% in the polls. The media gets its tingly feelings when he speaks, which seem to deafen their ears to the fact that he never says anything intelligible. And they spew forth the talking points that his campaign gives them in advance.

As for what Powell saw these past 7 weeks in Obama, he says "I saw a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this, and picking a Vice President that I think is ready to be President on Day 1, and also in not just jumping in and changing everyday, but showing intellectual vigor. I believe he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well." Okay, where to start? I guess I'll go in order. As for steadiness, he was very steady in one respect -- he did not involve himself at all in solving the crisis. He was steady in attacking McCain for trying to help with it, and in attacking the Bush administration for "getting us here," despite the fact that it was the Democratic "Community Reinvestment Act" and Clinton's enforcement of it, with the help of left-leaning community activist groups with legal teams, who forced bad loans to be given out, then sold to Fannie and Freddie. But after the plan was even accepted he came out with at least 7 plans on how to save the economy. The problem with HIS plans, rather than McCain's 7 or so plans, is that Obama never replaced his plans. He just added them onto each other. He built up a huge plan full of ideas that enrage some but include others, to the point where no one likes the whole plan, but some part of it modestly helps each individual. However, anyone who knows about the economy would see that none of them would actually solve the problem, but would rather extend relief that allows the problem to continue until a politician comes along to actually fix it.

Secondly, Powell said he had "intellectual curiosity." Doesn't this just mean that he had no idea what he was doing and wanted to learn? Shouldn't we have someone who doesn't need education when they are facing crises? Thirdly, "depth of knowledge?" That's an oxymoron. Except in the hard sciences, a depth of knowledge dilutes intellectual curiosity. If you know huge amounts of information about a subject, your intellectual curiosity fades, because you KNOW about the subject. If you know what to do, because you have a depth of knowledge, you probably would GO TO THE SENATE AND TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, rather than continue campaigning. Abraham Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Look to Obama's performance in the first debate, where he avoided the questions on the economy, especially those involving the economic crisis and the bailout plan. This is because he did not know what to say -- he had only been trained on the Foreign Policy section of the debate.

Powell then discussed Biden as "ready to be President on Day 1." While I do not doubt that he could probably do it, I am forced to ask the question "Do we really want that?" Biden has many judgment faults. He was against the First Gulf War (a response to Saddam's attack of Kuwait), then he became its biggest supporter (when it was politically popular). He then became, as most Democrats were, very eager to change the regime of Iraq, until a Republican came along to do just that. He changes his mind based on political winds, not on principle. He is a Democrat, and will agree with anything they say, even when they contradict themselves. He also has a tendency to lie about his connection to the people. "Home Depot," "plumbers in my neighborhood," restaurants that he "regulars" that close 20 years ago -- He lies, claiming to be a man of the people without thinking that he has no idea what normal people are or do. He is a rich Washington insider, which, on its face, is not a bad thing (I hate the talk that "Washington insiders" ruin everything -- some do, some try to help). However, going home to your kids everyday does not make you a "man of the people;" it makes you a "father." Just as no one says Sarah Palin's "being a mother" is a qualification; "being a father" should not be for Biden and Obama.

Powell then says that as Republicans narrow their focus, Obama is reaching across lines. These lines are "ethnic," "racial," and "generational." Okay, he is crossing ethnic and racial lines in ads like his immigration ad that portrays McCain as "against immigration," despite the fact that McCain sponsored the Amnesty Bill. He crosses this line by, as his surrogates have revealed to be his plan, "appearing white" in white audiences and "being black" in black audiences. He is pandering to crowds, and many young people (those "generational lines") are too stupid to see what he's doing, so he attracts them. Young people are attracted to him because he preaches "Change" for its own sake. He says, the last eight years have been bad according to the media and polls, so we will make the next generation far worse. Biden said it was an "inflection point," where the choice here will guide us far into our future, on an unstoppable course. This rhetoric is very powerful, but the problem is that the turn toward Obama and Biden is a turn toward a tree. Notice though, that Powell never states that Obama reaches across party lines... and those lines divide the country far more than race or ethnicity. The line between conservative and liberal is a defining line in this country, more than half of the population is conservative or leaning that way, and those people are not the ones that Obama reaches out to. He reaches out to people who already have his beliefs, or are easily swayed toward that path with promises of money, class warfare, and programs that cannot possibly be delivered in a way that is promised, especially during tumultuous economic times. He is reaching across lines that he already stands upon -- he reaches from the line to either side, and only in words, never in action.

As Powell said, "He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values not just small towns have values." First, this is because those that share his own values are not those of small towns, but those of metropolitan cities that generally have different and often more unfavorable values with regard to life and morality and all those things that people hold dear besides politics. Second, "he's thinking about" is very telling... he does not act for people, when has he ever? He merely thinks and talks and writes. But when it comes time to make a hard decision, he hesitates, he shirks responsibility, he votes present. How can Powell not see after all his years of service that deeds must always speak louder than words?

The Powell addressed Ayers, and how this "very limited" terrorist connection should not be used to call Obama "tainted." I agree to an extent. It is not the connection, or even the fact that Ayers was a terrorist that is at stake here. It is that the policies that Ayers and Obama came up with on those boards together are extremely damaging to the educational system. His priorities when alloting money from these boards were tainted, giving moneys to ACORN, Jeremiah Wright's Church, to schools not to enhance academic programs but to supplant them with political activist training. It is not a problem that Obama worked with a terrorist, despite the fact that if McCain had "palled around with" Timothy McVey, this would be a completely different issue, despite the fact that McVey and Ayers are essentially the same. It is a problem that while working with Ayers, he was funneling money to causes that are abhorrent to the American educational system, financial system, and even religious system. He demonstrated what he would actually do, rather than what he says that he will do. Again, this is Powell's acceptance of Obama talking points, and again he stated that the party moved to the right, again despite the fact that the most liberal Republican member of the Senate is the candidate.

Then he says he would "have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court." There is a problem with this statement. First, who is likely to retire? Stevens will certainly retire in the next term (he has been waiting eight years for Bush's term to end). But who is the other justice who will retire to make a "gain" for the conservatives? Ginsberg? Souter? The problem here is terminology. A "Conservative Judge" can be a liberal person. This judge can believe in abortion, but still rule against it. The Constitution says very specific things about where the ability to create laws regarding abortion and other issues lay, and it never is with the Courts. The Tenth Amendment gives it to the states, Article I Section 8 Clause 18 gives it essentially to the Congress (so long as they can prove that it is a law that is within one of their other enumerated powers). It never says in the Constitution that an unelected council of 9 legal minds are allowed to make policy in any form, which is what Roe v. Wade is...Policy. That is why it is a bad decision, because the Court overstepped its bounds, and who is there to "check" the Courts on this ground? Nobody. Why is it scary or bad to have judges that would look to the Constitution, rather than to their own political leanings on issues in order to decide whether laws violate the constitution or not? Why is it necessary to have judges that make decisions based solely on sociological research or polls rather than on the law and the Constitution? This has always baffled me, as I have been interested in the Court for quite some time, and I aspire to one day be a legal mind worthy of being a judge, whether or not at that height. I do not doubt at all any of their qualifications, but I doubt their philosophies. The Constitution grants very limited powers to the Federal Government, but the amount of revenue that it has decided to take in is a clear attempt to justify breaking those bounds.

The next part of Powell's monologue I actually wholeheartedly agree with. He said the "really right answer" to allegations that Obama is a Muslim is "what if he is?" I believe that religion does not, and should not disqualify someone from becoming President. It should be their views, their temperament, their experience, their plans or lack thereof, their world outlook (which, admittedly, could come from religion), and their outlook on this country. We would never accept someone who hates America as much as Michael Moore become President, so why will we make someone who has that same disposition toward it become President. Not all Islamic people are terrorists, least of all here in the United States. And so this should neither be a qualifying nor a disqualifying factor in the election inherently. This was the only thing that Powell said in his endorsement reasoning that was neither a talking point of Obama's nor something that could be widely disputed using actual facts and not just the opinion of an Obama supporter.

The closing of the endorsement was very upsetting though, so I will quote it below:

"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire; because of the inclusive nature of his campaign; because he is reaching out all across America; because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities, and we have to take that into account; as well as his substance, he has both style and substance; he has met the standard of being a successful President, being an exceptional President. I think he is a transformational figure; he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, and for that reason I will be voting for Senator Barack Obama."

While this is probably the best, most eloquent endorsement I have heard for any candidate since Reagan's endorsement of Goldwater (I'm not that old, I just love the "Time for Choosing" Speech that he gave at Goldwater's Convention), I cannot agree with his assessment of Barack Obama in any sense, even in the rhetorical sense. He is utterly dependent on a teleprompter to tel him what to say, and while he can read well and perform when he has the lines, so can Tina Fey or Will Farrell, neither of whom would ever be qualified for President. I will not parse the entire statement, but I have to disagree specifically with one other part... "style and substance." Obama does not have any substance. He talks. He has no record of action that would at all indicate that what comes from his mouth is his own opinion, much less that it would be acted upon in his administration. To be fair, McCain has about the same amount of substance, always stating that he will make some broad action, but not how. This election has been devoid of substance, but Obama seems to fake it better to some people.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Colin Powell beyond measure. He has one of the most distinguished careers of anyone who has lived in America in its history. He has obviously thought long and hard about the choice that he will make on election day, and he has given a wonderfully glowing endorsement that was not read from a teleprompter, but rather given from the heart. He knows so much about the world, and must truly believe that these are the things that Obama represents, but I must disagree with the premises and those opinions. Powell does not look specifically to the policies and compare them to what has happened in the past using similar if not the same plans. He looks to the future and sees what he thinks, or rather what Obama says that the Democratic plans will promote, and likes it. However, Obama is in a long line of leaders that create plans that slowly degrade the economy, military, and prestige of America -- from Franklin Roosevelt whose New Deal could not bring us out of the Great Depression and cannot be sustained even now, to LBJ whose Great Society has needed a complete overhaul since that disastrous Presidency, to Jimmy Carter, who laid the foundations for the current economic trauma. This country cannot afford to have another Democratic President before the mistakes of the last ones have been corrected.

A "Right" to Health Care?

It has recently been reported that Hawaii's universal health care system for children has gone bankrupt and is being shut down. Though I doubt Obama will take a clue from his own home state that universal health care is not a workable answer, I think this is the perfect opportunity to discuss one of the questions of the 2nd Presidential Debate that has risen in the past few days at Obama rallies (Yes, I give roughly equal time to both parties while watching the election coverage, despite my conservative leanings... and actually my election file is inflated in Obama's favor almost 3 to 1). This question was whether Health Care is a right, a priveledge, or a responsibility. Of course, like the Socialist Democrats, Obama and Hillary both agree that it is a right. McCain gave the more unpopular answer (among deadbeats anyway) that it is a responsibility, and I agree whole-heartedly with him on this assessment.

For my analysis of this issue, I will first describe why health care is not a priviledge. The primary reason that this answer is unacceptable in America is entirely apolitical. A priviledge describes something that generally is scarce. In third-world countries, health care is a priviledge, in which only government officials and the rich are able to partake and afford. Third World Health Care many times consists of these priviledged few entering the United States to get such coverage. In the United States, Health Care is not scarce, it is abundant. Health care is not a priviledge because it is available. Anyone can receive care for any ailment at will, though often people use its generally high cost to prioritize their doctor visits. And this cost is a direct response to the vast availability of health insurance. Insurance is available, driving up prices for the care itself (because they can get it), thus driving up the price of health insurance premiums. A few decades ago, people went to the doctor and paid the full amount in cash, without problem or complaint or insurance. Health insurance came along, and now prices have reached levels such that only the extremely rich can pay entirely out of pocket for everything. But Health Care is still not a priviledge because in emergency situations no one is ever turned away, and people are not left to die in the streets in this country.

As for the argument that it is a right, I will first explain where I think the argument comes from. I would trace the universal health care argument back to those much-quoted words from the Declaration of Independence: "...that they are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments and instituted among Men..." These words are the broad-sweeping goal that was laid forth for a republican democracy, though the purity and verity of these eloquent statements does not truly derive into a system for government to dole out health care to people. The government's protection of the sacred Right of Life was meant more to remove government from controlling the livelihood of people or from executing people indiscriminately. Governments do not provide the instruments to prolong life, but rather they defend the lives of the many from external and internal tyranny.

I believe that Health Care Insurance is a responsibility because while it has become a basic necessity for receiving care when needed, it is not something that I would accept asking another to pay for for me. Why is it that people believe that services provided by tax money are free? 30%+ of Americans are not liable for taxes, meaning that they pay nothing into the system. But it is this population that receives most of the services that taxes provide -- welfare, unemployment compensation, and indeed this is the target population for universal health care. If Obama were to become president, he would increase this percentage to 44%, and institute a number of systems that simply funnel other people's tax money into their pockets.

The Obama plan for Universal Health Care, as he states it, is not what will happen. There will not be a system into which people can buy insurance, both because the people who do not have self-purchased insurance plans are those that cannot afford them in the first place, or those who willingly choose not to buy plans, and because there are already two such systems in place -- Medicare and Medicaid, which you must pay into to receive the insurance program from it (Medicare is for the elderly and Medicaid is for those below the poverty line -- so these groups are already covered). In order to cover people, government would have to provide it for free to these people, as was Hillary's plan (possibly the reason why she lost the nomination, because she was actually realistic when expressing her socialist plans). However, when the government institutes a "free" program, it does so on the backs of the actual taxpayers, and very quickly removes a sense of personal entitlement to membership in the program (much like welfare, medicare, and social security, all three of which will fail when they run out of money in the coming years). there is a tendency to shove off responsibility for something if possible, and the Democrats encourage it, because dependance of government gives them power to control people. Personal responsibility to provide for oneself and one's family is becoming a thinly vailed war between the "haves" and "have nots," simply because the "haves" already have and the "have nots" are jealous but do not want to work harder to become a "have."

Universal health care will become overbearing in a way that is unprecedented on the planet, causing medical costs to rise uncontrolled (until government intervenes with, what else, higher taxes), and business to drop people from the coverage that they already have (as is what happened in Hawaii). If the government provides something, it provides it potentially to everyone, so those that do not wish to pay will not pay. If health care coverage becomes another huge entitlement, businesses and individuals will stop taking the responsibility for themselves.

Obama gave a speech about black fathers taking responsibility for their families, but he does not think that providing medical care if needed falls into this category. On this same line of thought, providing food should not be a parent's responsibility. We already know that providing homes for those that cannot afford them has crashed the economy, but all anyone can talk about is "keeping people in their houses," namely by providing a house for them. A house is a priviledge. College education is a priviledge. When these things are provided by government, the prices rise and the value of acquiring them falls. A responsibility is something that you should provide for yourself. A right is something you just have. It canot be granted by an institution of government or a document; it can only be taken away or restricted. The government does not provide the right to free speech; it defends it. This is why the Bill of Rights is set up as a denial of government powers, not as a bequest of a right.

A right is something that you would gladly give your life to defend, and ask your neighbors to do the same. A right cannot be bestowed upon someone from nowhere, it is simply there, but it is still precious enough to die for. Let me ask you, would you die for someone else's health care? And would you ask someone else to die for yours? If you can callously answer yes to either question, I encourage you to rethink your position, or vote for Obama and see the country devoured under such a terrifying and terrible entitlement.

3rd Debate

Ugh... McCain is not a debater, at all. He brings up a topic and then forgets about it. Obama once again regurgitated the talking points, whether or not they really answered the question. McCain tried some things, jabbed at Obama's liberalism, socialism, and indeed socialism, but did not follow up. Therefore, simply on steadiness, Obama won this debate. It wasn't by much, but he won. As for percentages, it was probably 35% (Obama) to 15% (McCain) with 50% to Joe the Plumber.

We have seen three full debates with increasing levels of pressure for John McCain, simply because his own supporters are tired of him being such a wuss about all of the issues about which we truly care. He said twice that "people are angry and they're right to be," but only meegerly tried to emulate such anger. He seemed as though he hadn't actually prepared all that hard, and it definitely seemed like Sarah Palin had begged him to bring up Ayers against his wishes. He did not follow up, and did not seem to know all of the requisite facts to have a rebuttal to the exact repudiation that Obama gave when Clinton brought up Ayers. There are tons of responses there, including ones that I put in my previous debate prep post. The response was somewhat okay, bringing up ACORN being funded by the Woods Fund, but he never brought up the fact that he misused Annenberg funds to promote political activism education, rather than math and science.

As everyone analyzing this says, Joe the Plumber was true winner. He got more time in this debate than any actual issue, although he was a very good metaphor that will very likely become a defining part of the McCain campaign for the remainder. Joe the Plumber is a testament to the ordinary people who will be affected by Obama's illconceived tax plan. His hard earned money, not his wealth as Obama characterizes it, is going to be taken in order to give it to people who do not pay taxes at all. Obama hopes to create a huge middle class on the shoulders of successful people in the middle class. Once you succeed, you will be taxed more heavily, thus why should you try to succeed? This was the problem with Communism... there's no incentive to succeed.

Dick Morris (one of the most ) said it best, Obama may go up a point or two, but this event lays the foundation for a McCain victory. There was no knockout victory here on either side, but in the long run it may be a McCain gambit.

I will have a better, question-by-question analysis later, if I deem it necessary. Overall, the whole thing was disappointing.

Re: Debate Prep

I think that there should be two main themes to this debate for John McCain.

First of all, since the focus on everyone's mind is the economy, there should be a "follow the money" theme, focusing not only on campaign fund raising but also on expenditures. Obama received money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on an unprecedented scale, and McCain should call for him to return that money, so that Fannie and Freddie would be able to pay back some of the money from the bailout. He can then bring up that two of the previous corrupt Fannie Mae CEOs are working with his campaign. Then, he should attack the illegal foreign campaign contributions that Obama has received and tried to hide. "Good Will" should come up during this section, and there should be insinuations that the money is coming from Iran (I don't know whether it's true, but that has been bounced around). He could also bring up Tony Rezko, the felon who gave Obama a "sweetheart deal" on his house.

Then we can move into expenidtures, focusing on Obama's record when he had money to spend. Start with the Annenberg Challenge, which had money raised by William Ayers and others for "improving education." This is Obama's only executive experience, which is being downplayed currently because it was a disastrous failure. The goals that Obama, as chairman, sought and focused funds toward were not reading, writing, and arithmetic, but rather political activism. So now we have illiterate adults that only know how to pressure government agencies into funding them. The Annenberg Challenge was shut down because there was no educational improvement, leaving Obama as the one and only chairman of that fund, which failed miserably.

Then we can go to the Woods Fund, on which Obama sat with William Ayers as well, which funded the Trinity United Church, the radical church with Jeremiah Wright as pastor. Money well spent apparently. Discussion can then move to the Obama campaign itself, discussing the $800,000 that Obama gave to ACORN (which should always be referred to as "The Association of COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS for Reform Now, since Obama made such a huff over the denegration of that part of his experience) for "Get Out the Vote," which has been totally successful, given that the money was used to fund Voter Registration Fraud in all of the Battleground states. He can also retort any response by citing the fact that Obama trained the new leadership which is presiding over this fraud.

If he felt really anxious to keep this going, he could mention that Biden funnelled money from his campaign to businesses, and Pelosi paid superdelegates to get him the nomination, and Pelosi gave money from her PAC to her husband's business, and Rangel's tax evasion and other ethics violations, and Frank's blocking of reform of Fannie and Freddie, and Maxine Waters's praising of Franklin Raines (corrupt former CEO of Fannie). Take the corruption issue to task for all of the Democrats, not just Obama -- especially since Obama said during Saddleback that he would use these people as advisors were he to be elected President. McCain is the guy who brought us "Campaign Finance Reform," so he should make a point of following the money.

This strategy would work to bring Obama's associations to light in a policy focus, since all of his dubious associates are connected not just socially, politically, or by location, but rather MONETARILY. The social connection is bad judgment, but those that will be swayed simply by the "palling around" comments have already been swayed by them. He needs to shoot for corruption charges, and attack Obama on policy (like, say, education policy that gave money solely for political activism training).

The second theme should be, and has been for the most part during the debates, Obama's inexperience. I want to hear the line "That's not how taxes work" several times, especially when Obama says that he will eliminate capital gains taxes for people making less than $250,000 -- because that doesn't happen. I want him to say that Obama claims that his plan encourages the American Dream, but that it only actually does this up to the $250,000 salary mark, then it takes the dream away. I want the redistribution of wealth argument to appear multiple times, since Obama finally slipped up and told the truth about his plan. I want him to point out that Obama will essentially be giving welfare checks to people who already don't pay taxes, in order to say "I will give a tax cut to 95% of Americans." That is the terminology that McCain should use... a refundable tax credit is a welfare check...because it is; it gives extra money to a group of people that pay nothing into the system.

I also want to hear that a $3000 tax credit to businesses for each new job created does not encouragte jobs. Why is $3000 supposed to be an incentive to spend upward of $50,000 or more? That is not how the economy works. You cut tax rates to create jobs, you don't give tax credits. A tax credit will be shunned by businesses, especially when they are already facing incredible increases in taxes. Many small businesses have plans to fire people upon the election of Obama, because he has promised higher taxes on them.

While this next line doesn't actually fit either of the two main themes that I laid out, and would NEVER be used in the actual debate, I think it would be a knockout line. McCain should say, "I would never question your patriotism, but I do question what you think patriotism is... because higher taxes are not patriotic." the election might be over at that point... but it would never happen.

Issues that should appear are as follows:

1.) Redistribution of Wealth
2.) Obama's education record (Annenberg Challenge and K-12 Sex Education)
3.) Abortion (and the Born-Alive Protection Act which Obama opposed)
4.) Foreign Policy
5.) Voter Fraud and Obama's Complicity in it

Finally, I think McCain should call the media out, by asking in advance whether certain issues will be addressed... he should be sure to use some time to ask whether the abortion issue will finally be raised. And then, if it isn't the media loses an enormous amount of credibility, because they are actively protecting Obama on an issue on which he will lose.

These are what I'd like to hear tonight, but I doubt that they will actually come out, because McCain does not actually understand that they would resonate with people. Obama has neither the experience, the understanding of issues, the judgment, nor the ethical capacity to become President of the United States.

Obama's Bush Doctrine

To go along with my analysis of the 2nd Presidential Debate regarding Obama's rather blatant acceptance of the "Bush Doctrine," I decided to make a short video. Partially out of frustration that SNL picked up Sarah Palin's "gaffe" but not Obama's, especially because Obama purportedly KNOWS what the Bush Doctrine is, and AGREES with it when you don't give a title to it...

The video is embedded below:

Recount Season is Here... Again.

Here we go again, election season is becoming recount season, ever since the monstrosity of 2000 (glad I wasn't a part of that one)... Both parties are spreading out the reasoning in advance that will account for their calling for hand recounts or simply multiple recounts, and both of these candidates have the blind ambition requisite to call for them over and over again (just like Al Gore).

On McCain's side, it may be somewhat justified, since his complaint will be the massive amount of voter registration fraud that may in fact translate into voter fraud. The massive amount of ACORN registrants who are dead, alive in other states but unaware, underage, or repeatedly registering begs the question of electoral legitimacy. Of course, this is also a potential reason that I see for Obama to call for a recount, because if there are massive numbers of votes that are illegal, how can you believe that the opponent still beat you? Although it is unsubstantiated, and may likely be wrong, this is the reason I believe that Al Gore made such a fuss about Florida... illegal votes gone wrong. However, this is probably not the reason Obama will call for a recount, or rather denounce a negative election result.

The reason Obama would use is racism. Obama cannot fathom that he loses on the issues, or on his dubious associations (including but not limited to his own wife), or on the fact that I as a recent college graduate have more experience and expertise in the field of politics than him. Therefore, as his surrogates are already doing, he will blame the outcome on race. He will say, "America is racist enough to deny the only voice of hope." And, according to James Carville, there will be race riots along the lines of Rodney King only across the entire country. This means that Obama's loss would incite riots just like the Kenyan for whom he campaigned used violence to gain power after losing an election. The Obama campaign has been injecting race into the campaign throughout the now two-year election cycle, not only playing the race card against opponents and critics, but also playing it in his image and in his advertisements (both paid for and donated by the media).

Just like slavery in the Civil War, the race factor has become the undue primary consideration in this election. The media always analyzes criticisms on the basis of "racial codes," even having the audacity to say that questioning Obama's connection to WHITE unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers is a racial attack. Ridiculous. There was also a story last month about how 50% or so of white democrats harbor negative views of minorities, trying to guilt them into party loyalty. They criticize the McCain campaign for allowing the people in the audience to say things like "terrorist" or "kill him" upon mention of Obama's name, despite the fact that many of them turn a blind eye to people calling for Bush's assassination and give credence to the belief that the United States, as ordered by George Bush, was responsible for 9/11. What is the difference here? Maybe the difference is that Obama actually has terrorist connections. Obama is sabotaging the effort to end the war in Iraq, because he wants to take credit for it. Obama is praised by the leaders of Libya, Hamas, Venezuela, Iran, and of the Palestinians, among others. How is endorsement by terrorists not a valid reason to associate the endorsee with terrorism or at least the philosophy behind those terrorists? There is a valid connection here, and there isn't for the "Bush connection," which Democrats lead and the media endorses.

Race will continue to be a factor, because the democrats and irresponsible political figures, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, stoke the flames of racial hatred because they profit from it. And I will go further out on a limb here, and say that the "Reparations" argument will arise anew if Obama is elected. Before anyone else, I will give my opinion of this idea. I will accept reparations for slavery, so long as they have physical proof, verifiable in a court of law, that they personally were slaves. Only then should they be given reparations. There is no collective unconscious... your great grandfather being a slave is not equivalent to you being a slave, and there is no entitlement that you should receive simply because of a blood relationship to a slave (regardless of what Whoopi Goldberg says while interviewing McCain). If there were, Italians would owe everyone in the Western World a great deal of money, because the Roman empire had a huge slave population from all over Europe. Reparations are not deserving for decendents of slaves under the Greek Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the other colonial empires, nor for descendents of the Japanese Empire's "comfort women," so why should descendants of American slavery receive reparations? I have digressed enough and my overall point has been made, so I'm out for now.

Debate #2

Very unimpressive. I actually believe that they are tied 25% to 25%, with 50% undecided for poor performance and other issues. I watched this one using my new system for cataloging things, which I used on the VP Debate, so I am more able to analyze the outcome and what was said. Once again, many of the questions were completely avoided (In the 14 questions, I counted 9 times avoiding from Obama and 5 from McCain), or became the automatic responses that you hear everyday in those repetitive rallies.

Watching the "regular" people reacting to the debate, I can't help but wonder why they saw so much that wasn't there. I would have fallen asleep if I weren't taking notes. There was no clear winner in any sense -- even the moderator was terrible (both at controlling the time situation and at choosing interesting and different questions). It should be said that I found more things that were bad about what Obama said, and more inconsistencies, but that should be expected since I disagree with him on more things than McCain. However, I admit that despite this discrepancy, it was still a tie.

First of all, McCain lost significant points early on by stating that the government should buy up mortgages and keep people in their houses. Seriously? Voting for the $700 Billion socialism bill shouldn't automatically make you a socialist in philosophy. If you let people lose the houses that they irresponsibly bought in the first place, they will be better off in the long run. Buying the loan creates the type of government dependence that the founders, and conservatives throughout history have tried to avoid. Taking that course of action actually served to qualify another prominent statement that he made, though, namely that there would not be another Cold War. Exactly, there won't need to be another one because we will have lost before it started. This is what the Cold War was all about...stopping the spread of socialism, at that time in the form of crony communism, but still socialism. I doubled the amount of points that he lost on this point each time he repeated it... which ended up costing significant points with the three repetitions.

Obama lost some large point values for three things: out and out lies (especially where he flipped on a position he had earlier in the campaign because the opposite has more support), changing his position on Iraq (even though he doesn't realize it), and plagiarism. The lies occurred frequently, especially over oil drilling and favoring nuclear power, which he vehemently opposed until he realized that the only people who don't want these are the extreme environmentalists. He also said, "I never promoted Fannie Mae." This might be true, but you still took the money they gave you to promote Fannie Mae, and they didn't cut it off... The tax cuts for 95% of Americans lie came up again. He yet again neglects, and McCain yet again ignores, that only 70% of Americans actually PAY taxes, and therefore you cannot give cuts to 95% of the populous ever... He also ignores the fact that if you are going to give tax money back to people, you must give it to the rich, because the wealthiest 1% of Americans contribute 95% of the annual budget revenue. Other prominent lies are the "warning notes" that he sent out about the economic crisis and about the Russia-Georgia situation. Where are these notes? Why won't anyone actually ask that? You can't just say "I warned about these things" and not have any evidence to back it up. He may not have been lying, but it is on him to prove it, and on the media and the McCain campaign to seek out the physical notes, or at least corroberation. He also said "I am confident in our economy," which was a rewording of McCain's statement "The fundamentals of the economy are strong," which he attacked McCain on earlier... hypocrisy or ignorance, take your pick. His position changes on Iraq are more complex, so I will include them later on, but the plagerism came on three occasions. First, he said "We can't drill our way out of this energy problem," which is directly from T. Boone Pickens. Next, he said "We are mortgaging our children's future" which is a Hillary Clinton line. Finally, he stole a line from Sarah Palin by saying "I don't understand some things... (like your policies)." He actually took a very effective line from the Palin debate and used it as his own...and he says Biden won the VP debate...

As for his flip on Iraq, he did not change his stance on Iraq, but he repeatedly applied the stance that he "opposed" to other countries (with whom we are not yet at war). In Question 11, about ignoring Pakistan's borders, he said "Yes, we should attack Pakistan to get bin Laden, with or without their consent." During Question 10, about the "Obama Doctrine," he laid out the only real requirements for us to use military force as having a "moral obligation" and having the resources. The Iraqi government was using chemical weapons on its own citizens. We overthrew a dictator who was demonized by both Al Gore and Joe Biden all during the Bush Sr. and Clinton years, until it became the policy of a President that they wished to destroy. The moral obligation in Iraq was no less than that of Darfur or Rwanda, and the resources are always there for military expeditions, because they are always placed at the forefront of a President's budget considerations (i.e. they make legacies). During Question 12 about Russia and humanitarian reform, he stated that we should take an anticipatory stance toward self-defense, rather than a reactive stance (like the Bush administration he says...). But this stance IS the Bush doctrine as most people summarize it (inaccurate as it may be) and object to it. He continued a trend that I have seen during his campaign. He outlined as something that we are not doing and need to, something that is already done and is policy (he does this about veteran healthcare and a variety of other issues) -- he tries to take future credit for things that are already being done, and often have been done for a long time. Only this time, it was something that he is supposed to adamantly oppose. Then, on the question about defending Israel, he essentially outlined the steps that the Bush administration took before going into Iraq and applied them to Iran. This kind of inconsistency, especially the fact that he doesn't realize that he is inconsistent, make me question his judgment and, yes, his intelligence. I would really like him to release his education information so I can compare my LSAT score, grades, and IQ with his... I suspect mine's higher.

Other notable things that I disliked about this debate:
1.) Obama's continued reference to line-item veto on spending bills... it's unconstitutional, get over it.
2.) Obama's insistence that deregulation was the problem, when it was caused by the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977" and Clinton's retasking of the justice department to enforce it (Even the Colbert Report of all places had economics experts saying that it wasn't the fault of the Bush administration or of deregulation on markets... government was the problem here, not capitalism).
3.) The increased spending plans on both sides introduced today (McCain proposed buying mortgages and Obama introduced "incentives for buying fuel-efficient cars," as well as the item in #4).
4.) Obama's 50% tax credit to small businesses to provide health care coverage... what is a 50% tax credit and how does that work? Does that mean he will increase taxes even more on bigger businesses to pay for it...50% increase on Microsoft. Dear Lord, does he know ANYTHING about the tax code?
5.) Obama's insistence that "Across the board" is "unfair." and that redistribution of wealth is fair for the people who take risks and make money, or simply employ people.
6.) McCain's bad "hairplugs" joke... ugh.
7.) McCain's reference to a bill that he forced a vote on, and lost the vote... why bring up a failure as if it is a qualification? That's like saying, "I failed to pass a bipartisan amnesty immigration bill." It will cost you votes. (Of course, if it had passed, he would not have had sufficient votes to win the nomination in the first place).
8.) Obama's insistence that "Health Care is a right" - Go back and ask the founding fathers if health care is a right and they would laugh in your face. They would also point out the property is not a right either...though the government should also not have the power to take it away, I mean look at the change from Locke in the Declaration from "life, liberty and property" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Health care is a responsibility, and when Obama makes a Father's Day speech about "personal responsibility," I think he should back it up with policy, rather than just words, which brings me to #9.
9.) Obama's insistence that words are equivalent to actions. Not only in foreign policy but in campaign promises and political ideological stances. His are far too fluid to be anything but pandering to the idiots who believe him.
10.) In the aftermath of the debate, when Obama was forced to actually back up his claim that he would have a net spending surplus (i.e. he would spend less than he takes in), he counted an increase in taxes as a decrease in spending. That is the epitomy of the danger that we face from this wouldbe president... and I cannot fathom anyone who knows these things and cares about the country voting for him.

Some things I thought were good about the debate:
1.) McCain bringing up Fannie/Freddie as Obama contributors, although he actually underestimated the impact (he got more than 4 times the money of any other Congressman during the 3 years he was there).
2.) McCain's energy discussion (finally calling it "all of the above" like the REPUBLICANS and Palin had prior).
3.) McCain saying that there are some bureaucratic agencies that need to be eliminated (even though I know it will never happen, it is wishful thinking).
4.) Obama stated that we should not place a dictator in Afghanistan.
5.) McCain's statement: "I was on navy ships that had nuclear reactors on them, there's no danger there."
6.) Obama's line "The Straight-talk express lost a wheel" -- I wonder how long his campaign has been saving that.


An interesting moment in the debate was right at the end though, when the question turned to what the candidates don't know and how they will learn it (the latter part of the question was left entirely unanswered). Obama said that he usually asks his wife (-100 points for a reference to the most unpopular and divisive potential first lady in history). He then said, "My wife Michelle is there [in New Hampshire], and she could give you a longer list than I do." Then, curious enough, she appeared in the room after the question was over to shake hands and meet people. After watching it again, I see that he points at her in the audience even though he did not say "my wife is here" and pointed. It is a weird thing to say, unless you want to make an impression to those few people that actually read the transcripts rather than watch the debate... but I doubt it was intentional. However, this is a rather long digression from the main point. The answers to the question were the interesting point. Obama's answer was like his wife's "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country" (and yes, I know that later that same day she amended it to be "really proud" but the original sentiment is the part that I wanted), and it mirrored what he said to the seven year old when he trashed America in front of her. He has one of the most negative opinions of the country that I have ever seen spewing forth from a Presidential candidate. On the other hand, despite not taking the crucial opportunity to answer the second question with "I will surround myself with the best possible group of experts in order to learn these things," McCain's answer was inclusive, putting himself among the many uncertain people in the country, yet hopeful, always reiterating that the best days are ahead of us and that he has not lost faith in this last best hope on the planet. This may be the difference that comes from a variety of bad associations on the part of Barack Obama, and I hope that people come to realize that this kind of "hopeless" sentiment is not a catalyst for a successful future.

October Surprise

To Mr. Obama:

Really? Is that all you have? Keating Five? In a time when you are the largest single recipient of dirty Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac money for the past three years straight (not to mention having its former crook CEOs as campaign advisors), when you have very notable connections to William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Jeremiah Wright, when you have received a "sweet housing deal" through your crook friend Tony Rezko, when you were the lawyer for ACORN (a repeated voter fraud organization), when your plans will increase spending by more than a trillion dollars a year while simultaneously stunting the economy and exacerbating the outsourcing phenomenon, when your Vice President has proven he does not know anything about history or the Constitution within a week's time, when you have voted for comprehensive sex education for Kindergartners (I read the bill and there is not one reference to "predators" and there is a requirement of "HIV Prevention education for all grades" -- though it is not actually your bill I admit) and infanticide, and when you are involved in a lawsuit where a Democrat is questioning your very eligibility for the presidency, is the only dirt you can find on McCain a charge that he was exonerated from? Really?

You have roving death, I mean truth squads in the battleground states to threaten opposition with legal action (prompting the amazing governor to say "grow up"). You had thousands of people descend on Alaska to find the dirt that isn't there on Sarah Palin (I mean, a witch hunter may be crazy, but he's not blow up a building or "we deserved 911" crazy...). You have millions of illegal foreign contributions, and over-the-limit contributions from made-up names like "Good Will" to fund your information hunts and teleprompter statements. You are involved with Annenberg, the number one "independent" fact checker. You have the entirety of the media, with the exception of Fox News, which still sides with you on occasion as well. They even play the race card so you don't have to, even though you are currently playing three different ones. How is it that you cannot come up with something that is actually ethically wrong with either of them? Why are there no associations that they have with terrorists or with crazy people or with crooks like Franklin Raines and Tony Rezko?

Maybe you just don't realize that most normal Americans wouldn't associate with people like that, at least not as long as you have. Maybe you don't realize that normal people don't have the intense ambition that you have, which drives you to seek out radicals to support you. Maybe you don't realize that other people believe in accountability for one's actions and associations, and so they do what they think is right: ethically, economically, humanely. But I guess in this respect you remain out in left field... there's nothing "right" about you.

Just saying my peace. I sincerely hope that the coming weeks see the polls in your favor, because we all know the hack math that has gone into many of them, not to mention the excessive effort that has gone into seeking out the population that you already have to respond to those polls. I sincerely hope that your hopes for victory rise, so that the defeat that you suffer will crush your spirit harder.

Debate Reaction

Again we see the debate and its primary coverage come to an end, so I will give my opinion of it.

For me, it was a clear Palin victory. She said many things that John McCain couldn't... like "How can you say you're against things and then vote for them?" She spoke with a completely different tone, timbre, and indeed accent than Biden, who came off as the old politician trying to swindle people. I would say it was a 60% to 33% Palin win, with 7% undecided for various things.

First of all, for this debate you need to look at expectations. Even I was on the fense about Sarah Palin after her most recent interview (despite the fact that the questions were things Biden wouldn't be able to answer off the cuff). The thing that really hurt my opinion of her was the "What news sources do you read?" question, because as long as she didn't say "New York Times" or "LA Times" she was golden. Even Washington Post would do. My point is that the glint of her appearance at the Convention was fading and, while I still liked her, even I was questioning readiness... which by the way consequently lowers my opinion of Obama's readiness, because his is still lower. I was expecting one of two outcomes... deer in headlights or The Gipper... I received the latter.

On the Biden front, I was expecting some degree of knowledge of issues, against my opinions but still expertise. But I was also looking for gaffes. Just last week he made the FDR comment. Now, don't get me wrong, Joe Biden, when not making stupid mistakes like that, is a powerful speaker. I was listening to one of his speeches that just glowed with rhetoric (before he turned to issues where he was wrong...). Therefore, I had expected him to make gaffe after gaffe, and was keeping a count of them in three categories (racial, sexist, and stupid -- I only got "stupid" ones by the way). In the 90 minutes, I only caught 7, and only one serious one, but we'll get there in time. Therefore, Biden did much better than expected in my opinion.

To be fair, I should point out that I was looking for deer-in-headlight moments from Palin, and only found 3 (also to be discussed below). I also have to subtract points for "nucular," which came out of Palin's mouth 13 times (by my count). Still, the underestimation (very much misunderestimation) of Sarah Palin pushed her way over the top in this debate.

Palin's strategy was simple, to make herself seem knowledgable while harshly criticizing Biden and Obama the way McCain either can't or won't. She was very successful, with such notable lines as during the health care debate: "And unless you're pleased with the way the government is running anything these days, you don't want [universal health care]." Devastating blow that could only really be delivered by someone who wasn't at all a part of Washington political culture. Biden couldn't respond. She consistently slammed both Biden and Obama for their records and for the Primary debates, where Biden was one of Obama's biggest critics.

Biden's problem is that he is a part of the perceived problem. He has flip-floped and she caled him on it, using Bush's quip against Kerry "He voted for it before voting against it." He lost points on the Cheney question...not because he called Cheney the most dangerous VP in history, but because he said that the VP should only have power in the Executive Branch other than the tie-breaker vote. This wouldn't be a problem if two questions earlier, he hadn't talked about pulling strings in the Senate as VP to get things done. Hypocrisy. Plus, one must remember that the President of the Senate is the VP, and in the earliest times of the country he would actually DO that job on a day-to-day basis. When the workload of Congress increased the Pres. Pro Tempore position was established to fulfill this aspect of the Vice President's duties for everyday duties. It was an active decision, but the VP has the right at any time to preside over the Senate, making him essentially a legislator. Palin's answer did not go into this depth, but it was essentially the same.

One must not overlook Biden's only huge gaffe of the night which was also in this section. He said that VP's duties were outlined in Article I as an Executive power. The Vice President's role IS in this section...as a non-voting legislator... the "Speaker of the Senate" so to speak. The Vice President is also listed in Article II as a member of the Executive Branch, the successor to the President to be elected alongside him (originally as the loser of the election, then as a running-mate). This places the Vice President in both branches of government, the same way that you have Article I and Article III courts. Just because the VP has not presided over the Senate as President for over a century in a situation other than a tie or during a ceremony (i.e. State of the Union Address).

Other prominent gaffes were Biden's long list of tax cuts that they will not support, which, when you are talking about how you will give tax cuts, is not a very good thing to do. This was early on. Another big gaffe was his statement that he would support the civil rights of people who were in "gay marriages," then in the very next question he said he was against gay marriage. Another funny thing that was dumb he said was that this is the most important election that you have voted in since 1932. You know, so many people that are dead must be voting in this election to have people vote in both 1932 and 2008 elections. How many 97 year olds (the youngest possible age to vote in both elections... voting age = 21 in 1932) are there, much less being aware enough to vote in this one. I'm sure there are some, but not many, and certainly not many who would vote for a black president... think Strom Thurmand on this one. So, who was he really talking to? He also said "Just walk into Home Depot where I spend a lot of my time"... what is that supposed to mean? Does he do a lot of his own yard work, or just go out and buy the equipment for the people who he pays to do it (at least he's not like Traficant who made his staffers do yard work before going to prison of course). He was trying unsuccessfully to play to middle class people, which he definitely cannot do, at least not as effectively as someone who actually IS middle class... Sarah Palin. That isn't all of them, but those are the most prominent gaffes I found. I did not specifically look for factual errors... because there were probably a lot on both sides (and I heard at least 5 from Biden alone in addition to the Constitution thing).

Being fair, here are the three "deer" moments that I found in Palin (only one is actually a look). She said "There's a problem on main street that is affecting Wall Street," a simple slip of the tongue which I call nerves, because her voice was quivering at that point in the debate. She said "Senator OBiden," which was funny in my opinion because it happened all the time right after he was picked as the VP candidate. Finally, the actual deer in headlights moment came when she hesitated before saying that Obama and Biden had a "plan of surrender" in Iraq. That was a genuine "deer" moment and not just a gaffe.

I'll leave you with an early statement that Biden made that not only had me cringing, but also lost him a significant number of points -- "Where I come from a tax increase is not called 'redistribution of wealth,' it's called 'fairness.'" This statement is indicative of liberals and their tax and spend philosophies... they change the term to sell it to the people. Social Security was "insurance" until they spent the money elsewhere, then they called it a "tax" in private. Nazis called the Holocaust a "solution," but we all know that it was just "genocide." A rose by any other name smells sweet, and Obama-Biden policies, by whatever name they give them stink.

Debate Prep

Okay, here is my take on the VP Debate, granted that we are now in the fifth hour of the 10-hour pregame show for it. Both sides have a lot to lose and only one side really has a lot to gain. McCain has the potential to clinch the election with this debate, because it will be the last real opportunity for Americans to see Sarah Palin. However, if she flubs it up, he will likely lose tonight.

Of course, you also have Joe Biden, who is likely to ask Gwen Ifill (who is in a wheelchair) to stand up. His gaffe-machine brain and true partisanship will play a very negative role in the debate for him, and with Palin on the show it means that there will likely be a high television rating (at least higher than last week's snoozefest).

Sarah Palin has a lot that she can attack Biden for, especially flip-flops on foreign policy. Apparently, he voted against the first gulf war, then became its biggest supporter when it was successful. He then tried to push Clinton to take out Saddam because there would never be accurate information about WMDs until he is gone. And finally, he voted for the current Iraq War before opposing it forcefully, then supporting the Surge... How many different opinions can you have on one region of the world? And just to the East, in Iran, he's been one of their biggest supporters. He said that we should give Iran a $200,000,000 check to them a few days after 9/11. He has also voted against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization (along with Obama).

However, Biden, on the other hand, is being encouraged to ignore Palin and debate John McCain. I believe that this is also a dangerous strategy, because she has the ability to connect with viewers that Joe Biden doesn't. Biden may have some form of expertise on foreign policy (even though he got his chairmanship through seniority and not expertise), but Palin has expertise in energy issues. She will clober him, especially since he has argued against Nuclear energy, oil drilling, and recently he railed against clean coal. I hope, oh how I hope it comes up, that there is a question about global warming and the effect on the polar bears. Palin will knock that out of the water, since she has started a lawsuit to have polar bears removed from the endangered species list, because their numbers are growing.

On the experience issue, Palin should say that she has executive experience, she had to balance an 11 billion dollar budget, and she has roughly as much political experience as Barack Obama, and she is still only the bottom of the ticket, not the top like Obama. She MUST, in my opinion, bring up Biden's statement that "The Presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training," but preface that the Vice Presidency does lend itself, and she'll be learning from the most experienced person possible. She should also cite that Biden and Obama's bad and dangerous judgments on foreign policy and the economy are not what the country needs. She can say that Obama's Georgian response changed four times, eventually leading to the response that McCain made first and stuck with. Play on Obama's indecision, his inability to actually comprehend the problems that "his" plans would create for the country, and the inability of he or Biden to be bi-partisan in anything they do.

On the bi-partisan front, she can cite that Obama recently said "I don't actually have very much influence with House Republicans" and ridicule his "Great Unifier" image, which is totally fabricated. The only unity that he promotes is that of terrorists in Iran cheering for the easy time they will have if he is President. I wonder why the world is clamoring to have him be President... maybe it's because he won't do anything without their approval. He will subject US interests to a council of foreign nations. The United States would no longer be a leader in the world, but will follow the appeasement policies of the EU and other prominent UN nations and coalitions that have, guess what, themselves as the primary interest. If there is no dominating power, they can try to assert themselves as such again. Balance of Power Principle 101. If teachers would spend more time teaching and less time wearing blue for Obama, more people would realize these truths, and we might have a better education system. But once again, I digress.

I am looking forward to the debate, because I like Palin. However, I sincerely hope that they haven't over-trained her to the point where she is uncomfortable. I also really hope Biden makes some kind of racial slur, sexist comment, or other gaffe that would completely destroy his credibility and lose the campaign. I hope Biden makes it so that the only way Obama can win is to say "You're voting for the President, not the Vice President" and himself remove Sarah Palin from the limelight of criticism. There I said it.

Kim Jong Obama and Other Images of the "Messiah"

I have finally decided to address the image of Obama in this blog. His image will be further shown in the election section of "The New Genesis," which will not actually be completed until after the election at the current rate of production.

Obama has tried extensively to style himself after John F. Kennedy, and I really wanted someone to revive the old "You're no Jack Kennedy" statement, but that won't work. Even McCain is too young for that.

But on the other hand, we can destroy the glint of that image by putting to words the major accomplishments of Jack Kennedy, which were overwhelmingly negative. McCain could merely say that his opponent has styled himself after an inexperienced man who stared down a wall, almost starting World War III (Cuban Missile Strike), and actually did start the most unpopular war (with a "tiny country" in Southeast Asia) and only war to be lost by America. And after he was assassinated, his more experienced successor was completely in charge of the unpopular war and lost it through actual incompetence and refusal to rely on commanders to engage the war. Then he looks at Obama and says "You tried to stare down Georgia when Russia invaded it, and now you want to start a war with Pakistan. I agree with you, you look like Jack Kennedy, and we can't afford that now."

That would be an amazing statement that would completely throw one of the three prominent images that Obama tries to use for himself on its head. The "Messiah" image is reemerging after about a month hiatus (following McCain's "The One" ads before the DNC). There is also an image that is quite unflattering (if you think about it), the "Dear Leader" image.

By "Dear Leader," I mean that he has styled himself after the dictator Kim Jong Il. His Messiah image very much coincides with this. He tries to create an air of perfection, using a favorable media and threats to control opposition. He creates an ultra-loyal base using this image, spawning public adulation. He takes credit for the positive actions of government, whether they happen or not, and denies any connection to negative aspects, or calls these negative things positive. He is ambitious unlike any other person in our recent history, seeking power at the expense both of family and friends. He creates various racially-based images to divide groups against each other; he insights class warfare in order to push for redistribution of wealth and excessive government control over the everyday life of citizens.

He has propaganda spewing forth from all corners of his mouth, much of which contradicts the other things he says. Therefore, whatever he does or doesn't do has already been promised to be done and avoided (both for every issue). He has children already being indoctrinated to support him through song (and "dance?"). This is reminiscent of the North Korean workers singing (literally) the praises of their "Dear Leader," while praying to his images, which are everywhere, and clapping to a uniform beat. The only difference I see is that Obama does not wear his patriotic pin at all public outings. No wonder he says that he will negotiate with rogue dictators - they are his models for candidacy and, presumably (since he says that his experience is based in "running his campaign for 19 months") his presidency (God Forbid.).

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of McCain, but we cannot allow someone who takes as his model the worst dictator in the world, who surrounds himself with crooks and radicals (and pastors who say we deserved to be attacked on 9/11), who spurs racial hatred and class warfare, who lies incessantly about his own record, about his associations current and past, and about his future plans, and whose entire experience in leadership and governance is demonstrating his ambition through his campaign, to achieve that ambition. We must choose the lesser of two evils... and that is John McCain.