The World Turned Upside Down

March 12, 2009

I have been cognizant of the workings of politics for a relatively short amount of time. Nevertheless, it doesn't take long for one to figure out that politics is very easy to predict, since the topic is very cyclical in nature (some might replace the word cyclical with "hypocritical").

With this in mind, I wondered for several years before the last election, what would happen if a democrat were elected president? For nearly two years, conservatives complained and complained about an evil media machine that would bend over backwards to get Barack Obama elected; the same media were a huge enemy to President George W. Bush for eight years.

I literally had conversations with people who told me with the utmost conviction that if Obama got elected, we would be screwed, but that the media would actually make us think everything was wonderful, being the democratic whipping children that the media were.

So, given the premise that the media are hopelessly biased, it was no surprise how Obama practically cleaned John McCain's clock in the election. There then followed the transition period, after which Barack actually became President Obama.

Not much later, I was absolutely astounded to see storys about layoffs, crashing stock markets, forclosures, and all other sorts of economic turmoil. I was surprised to see actual criticisms of President Obama - his stimulus plan, his failure to forge bipartisan inroads, not vetoing the $410 billion spending bill, failing to bring ALL troops home from Iraq like he said he would, etc. Not only was I surprised, I was incredibly dumbfounded to see that such criticisms came from conservative AND liberal writers.

And now, conservatives who spouted off for at least the last eight years that a person was unpatriotic to criticize the president, have gotten out the clubs, and are going to town, now that the president isn't a republican anymore.

While everything has changed - the Democrats have considerable majorities in both houses of Congress, and control the presidency - nothing has really changed. Liberals who bashed Bush incessantly are now critical of people who can't stand Obama, and conservatives who justified every move President Bush (because you have to respect him, he's our president for crying out loud) made, are now venomously on the prowl to attack Obama.

And the biased, far-left media machine have disappointed me tremendously. An obviously biased media would not allow so many conservatives to publish disparaging opinions toward Obama. They reported job losses and facts about a faltering economy to make Bush look bad, because they simply hated the man. So why would they report negative press about the economy now that Bush is gone? How are Rush Limbaugh and his conservative clones on the radio not being silenced?

Of course, the only answer I seem to get from conservatives is a fake, theoretical argument: sure, the press still report the negative things, but if John McCain (or any other republican name) were in charge, the press would be out for blood, blaming everything on him, and calling for his impeachment, yada, yada.

My favorite response: theoretically, pigs could fly, but I'm not sure what point that proves.

I guess the most predictable fact about politics: those ideologues on both sides will continue to see what they want to see, and turn a blind eye to anything else, all the while decrying the biases of others, remaining hopelessly entrenched in their own biased worldview.

If nothing else, I suppose it gives me the right to call myself a prophet. And that ain't so bad.

Was God Wrong?

March 4, 2009

I was cleaning out my inbox yesterday when I stumbled across a pre-election gem in the form of a story about Sarah Palin. I know, most of you have probably already forgotten her, but I'm sure there's a few staunch conservatives who still want to canonize her, or at least adopt her in place of their real mother.

Anyway, the article quotes Palin as saying to James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” (soon to be "formerly of") that she was confident God would do the right thing on election day.

I would love to have a follow up on that statement. If Palin was right, then God obviously wanted Barack Obama to be president. However, cutting through the shrubery to arrive at the obvious, Palin was saying no more, no less than "John McCain will be president because that is what's best for the country, and God will do what is best for the country."

Here's an exact quote: “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

Which is exactly why I am now going to go search for information about Sarah Palin changing her faith, since it seems very unlikely she would want to continue worshipping a God that is not even wise enough to pick the right president of the United States.

If that is too much of a stretch, I'm sure I will find loads of evidence that Palin is firmly behind Obama as president, since I assume she is just as confident God did the right thing on Nov. 4 as she was that he would do the right thing prior to the actual election.

If you find anything on either subject, please inform me. I'm not optimistic about the endeavor. But I'm sure God will do the right thing.

The Presidential Election

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

I guess it may not come as a surprise - I am content that Barack Obama was elected the president of the United States. I think he will be a better president than John McCain would have been. I was very impressed by John McCain's concession speech, where he implored his supporters to give Obama their respect and admiration for the campaign he ran. President Bush has also encouraged Americans to be proud of Obama.

Last night I was awestruck by the significance of the event historically. Whether one agrees with Obama's politics, we can at least agree he certainly is the poster-boy for the belief that anything is possible in the United States of America.

President Obama is going to have a boatload of problems to attack, literally the second he is sworn into office. I hope he will do what is best for the country, and not just do the bidding of the far left and the progressives. He certainly has a lot of potiential. A large majority supported him in the election, and people around the world have been inspired by his message and his story.

I wish him the best. We still have a couple months before Bush leaves office. Obama will be selecting people for his administration in the meantime. I want to just let things kind of quiet down, and just take in all the change that's in the air. I hope others will be optimistic at the possibility for moving the U.S. in a new, better direction. If John McCain had won, I would have been optimistic as well. Change is inevitable. And if it's pursued in the correct manner, change can be a very good thing.

SNL smacks Olbermann

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Should Government Intervene?

I have a few questions for anyone concerned. I continue to hear the line that people who accept government assistance are lazy. Apparently, all these lazy people happen to be democrats. I don't know how this is known, but it seems to be common knowledge among republicans. If such is not the case, let me know, and I will correct this assumption.

That aside, my question is the following: when pressed on the $700 billion bailout bill, nationalizing banks to a degree, Senator John McCain responded that this is a serious financial crisis, and it is government's responsibility to intervene on behalf of the people.

My first question is: do you agree with him?

My second question is: if it is the government's job to intervene in a financial crisis, what is the difference when an individual, or a family, who are often prone to fall into financial crisis, go to the government for intervention? Why is it assumed that the person or persons are lazy?

Is it government's job to intervene in a widespread crisis, or an individual one?

You don't have to answer this next part, but just something to think about.....if McCain becomes president, and is able to implement his program to buy up bad mortgages, will he only buy up democrats' bad mortgages? Will people who are republicans refuse the bailout money? If not, are they lazy republicans? Just food for thought.

Ugly Times for Republicans

This morning I watched Meet the Press on NBC. Tom Brokaw interviewed Senator John McCain, and I thought I could listen and try to see if McCain had anything different or worthwhile to bring to the table that I haven't already heard.

Turns out, he didn't. He was as evasive as ever. He kept repeating the same senseless jabber about Joe the Plumber and Socialism; which polls he believes, and which he disagrees with. He talked about bucking the party, and going against the president. Whenever Brokaw brought up a tough question, McCain evaded. And, of course, he was in attack mode most of the rest of the time.

The issue that I don't understand is this (and if you can lay it out for me, it would be appreciated): first, Barack Obama is a Socialist because he says we need to "spread the wealth around."
Okay, we get it, senator.

So when questioned about tax policy, McCain says the LAST thing you want to do during tough economic times is raise taxes. But McCain is for the $700 billion bailout, he will certainly be for subsequent bailouts, which in no uncertain terms, could be described as Socialism. His explanation? It is government's job to step in during tough times and intervene to help the American people.

Okay, stay with me here. John McCain - against wasteful spending, lambasts Bush every day on the national deficit size, says the government should intervene in unprecedented ways because the times are hard, yet says the worst thing you can do is raise taxes. How does it make sense? And if you can make it make sense, how does McCain pay for it? If you believe he will actually impose the spending freeze he's been talking about, you are, as Bill O'Reilly is oft heard saying, "living in the land of Oz."

Here's the hard reality. McCain is going to lose. He is getting farther and farther behind. But it is not just the presidential race that republicans stand to lose. In an opinion piece, David Frum talks about how McCain is sinking not only himself, but other republicans as well. Democrats only need a net gain of 15 seats in the House to have a majority, and it they can pick off a few Senate seats, they could even get to 60 senators, something that it almost unheard of. But thanks to McCain, it may happen.

Says Frum: McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."

In the Senate, things look, if possible, even worse.

On Meet the Press, Brokaw pointed out that in 2004, 37% of voters considered themselves Republican, and 37% considered themselves Democrats. Now, the numbers are 37% Democrat, 29% Republican.

Things could get ugly for the Republicans. But they are in denial. If they are not in denial, then they probably just don't care much. As long as Sarah Palin can go around firing people up over Obama being a terrorist socialist, I guess they will be content. It's just too bad that Republicans may lose the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate, all at a time when the Congress' approval rating is even more dismal than that of the president. I guess that is what it will take to jolt the Republicans to the idea that they might need to change their policies up; do things differently in the future.

If not, the Democrats could be in power for a long, long time.

Chess Anyone?

If I could afford seven houses like John McCain, this is one of the houses I would buy. I don't know why, but the idea of having a giant chessboard in the backyard just seems awesome.

It's reasonably priced - 6 bedrooms, indoor pool, set on 10 acres less than a mile from the Santa Fe National Forest.

$5,900,000

See you there.

Will Ferrell as George W.

I love Will Ferrell as President Bush. The man is hilarious. The skit is great, too. John McCain wants nothing to do with Bush.

Some Clarifications

I don't know why I'm doing this. I have no evidence people even read this blog, and I have no basis on which to suppose that anyone who cares will read this post.

However, some conversations I've had with different individuals concerned, have encouraged me to make some clarifications. I was, in fact, going to refrain from anything political until after the elections. But strangely, with the encouragement of my best friend, I feel I shouldn't have to worry about simply giving my opinion on politics.

First of all, I still have not decided for whom to vote. I got my early ballot today. I am not voting for John McCain, but I am still trying to decide if I should actually vote for Barack Obama, or for one of the third party candidates. I originally intended to go third-party no matter what, but lately I am feeling like that strategy would have little point.

That's my way of saying: understand when you read posts on this particular blog, you are reading words from a very conflicted individual. The presidential race has been going on for nearly two years, and yet I cannot make up my mind. If Ron Paul was still in the race, I would have voted for him without question.

My posts have been particularly accusatory toward McCain and Sarah Palin. I have posted many clips from The Daily Show, which is a very vulgar, and offensive show. In my mind, these actions are perfectly justified, as they help explain why I hold certain political positions.

Those who read the blog rarely, if ever, will not understand these nuances. They do not understand me, nor my points of view. Sometimes they don't understand my viewpoints, because they refuse to acknowledge that my opinions have any validity. They want to call names and point fingers, rather than discuss differences.

It should be understood that my opinions, which differ greatly from those you may have heard me state in the past, are not meant to be directed at individuals, but are a way of describing what I have come to believe, and why I think in such a manner. In my humble opinion, there are those out there who dislike my vocal nature because they do not want to deal with opinions contrary to their own. They avoid doing so because they think considering other viewpoints is somehow a repudiation, or at least a demonstration of doubt, of their deeply held views.

Then, they change the subject, saying what I say is mean-spirited, negative, or offensive. I've gone back and read many of my posts, and I have been hard pressed to find anywhere where I have crossed whatever imaginary moral line one might think exists in discussing politics.

I've thought it curious that in college, as a strong conservative, I was afraid to speak out because I thought I would be ridiculed by my more liberal professors (and sometimes I was ridiculed). Now, I have looked at some of those opposing opinions, so much so, that I have even come to agree with some of them. Now, I am afraid to speak out, because I might be ridiculed by my republican associations.

I talk way too much. There is no doubt about it. But my object in speaking my mind has been rather simple: I have come to reject some of the lessons that were taught to me as infallible in my youth. Again, if people disagree, or still believe what I am about to denounce, it is simply my opinion. But have no doubt, I am sometimes passionate about these opinions, because I feel I have been denied a full understanding of how the world works, because for quite awhile, I was given the false impression that I really only had one choice to follow in politics.

So here goes - here are some of the ideas I had years ago, that I have fully come to reject (and yes, I feel strongly about them, and others probably feel just as strongly the opposite view):

- You can't be Mormon and a democrat.

- The Republican Party is more religious, more righteous, than the Democratic Party.

- The media have a liberal bias.

- The poor (those who rely on government aid to subsist) are poor because they are lazy. Democrats are the party of the "lazy" and believe in "spreading the wealth socialism."

- I should vote for someone I don't support, just because the opposing party is more scary.

- If you feel strongly about something, there are no other points of view that are as valid as yours. It is okay to make fun of others' view points, if they oppose yours, but it is not fair for them to insult yours.

I think most of what I've been saying can be found under the umbrella of those six topics. I find some of the above ideas rather disturbing. But I understand that some people believe them firmly, and I respect them for it. I do not find the individual people themselves disturbing. Rather, I would like to be able to have a discussion with any of them, so we could come to a better understanding.

Unfortunately, today's culture is extremely enveloped in the mentality that if you disagree with someone, you can expect to be judged by your views, often before anyone on the opposing side has tried to understand them.

Since I haven't had much success in other forums discussing these viewpoints, I have chosen to post them on a blog, a blog that is rarely read by anyone, at least that I am aware.

I am not going to stop giving my opinion. I am not going to change how I feel, even if it is not acceptable to some of my associates. And I am not going to post feel-good "we went to the zoo today" entries on my blog because I just don't have any interest in doing that kind of stuff. If my significant other wants to, she can do it. If you're interested in knowing a little more about the Cherry family, they have started a blog.

And just for the future, if you plan on telling me how offensive my views are to you, I am going to ask you if you've read this 23 Oct. post, and if you've read carefully, and if you've tried to come to an understanding before you got offended. If you haven't, I am not going to take your complaint too seriously. We all need to listen to and consider other points of view. I believe it makes us better people. We can't just get offended and go off and pout. In the end, we can respect each other more, once we come to understand our disagreements. If you don't have time to gain understanding, or read carefully, then let's just leave it alone. Just walk away from the blog, and we'll discuss something else.

P.S. I've decided to stop posting clips from The Daily Show. I did so before, because Jon Stewart is one of the only people out there who actually makes excellent political points, and he does so in a hilarious way. However, I think a lot of the material is unsuitable for what I would like to consider a "safe" blog site. But I will still comment on my views, and I will bring it fiercely every day.

Debate III Commentary

As if you haven't had enough of hearing about debates, Obama, and McCain. Well, too bad, my friends, too bad.

For starters, I thought the format and the proceedings of the debate were the best of the three presidential contests. I thought Bob Schieffer asked some very astute questions, which were not always in the template of what the first two debates seemed to follow. I liked that he gave them a little more time to "debate" each other.

I also liked that John McCain was in attack mode all night long. Not only did it show that McCain is going down like his military....you finish the thought, I don't have the cojones to go there. It also gave Obama one last chance to respond (and in my opinion, he did so rather effectively) to all of the accusations McCain's campaign has thrown out there, these last few weeks especially.

I want to include Obama's word-for-word response to the question McCain raised about Barack's vote in the Illinois Senate against giving prenatal care to late-term babies who survived abortion procedures, since this is one of the most insidious and questionable things I've heard about Obama over the previous months. Obviously, you have to trust Obama, and if you don't it won't matter, but I thought he explained his reasoning perfectly:

MCCAIN: Senator Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that.

And then, on the floor of the State Senate, as he did 130 times as a state senator, he voted present.

Then there was another bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois not that long ago, where he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, one of the late-term abortion, a really -- one of the bad procedures, a terrible. And then, on the floor of the Illinois State Senate, he voted present.

I don't know how you vote "present" on some of that. I don't know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America. And that's his record, and that's a matter of his record.

And he'll say it has something to do with Roe v. Wade, about the Illinois State Senate. It was clear-cut votes that Senator Obama voted, I think, in direct contradiction to the feelings and views of mainstream America.

SCHIEFFER: Response?

OBAMA: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.

There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances.

So there you have it. I think Obama answered a lot of the allegations coolly. One thought I had during the debate was, if you want an indication of who is more negative, just look at the two candidates throughout this debate. All in all, the two campaigns have both gone very negative, and are almost even in that respect, as you can see on the fact-check links I will post shortly. But on almost every single question, McCain went to attacking Obama. Obama attacked on and off, but much less frequently. When asked about Palin's readiness to be the VP, Obama danced around the question, but did not attack. McCain attacked Biden for like three minutes. If you couldn't see the disparity there, and throughtout the debate, in McCain attacking Obama, then so be it.

A couple other tidbits: what does not having town hall debates have to do with whether the tone of the campaigns is positive or negative. That's about as good an argument as, let's see....if my ears weren't so big, my teeth wouldn't be so yellow.

And how come the tough, battle-hardened McCain, who has been such terrible experiences as a POW, crying about what someone said about him? For being such a tough guy, he sure can whine.

Finally, most idiotic part of the debate: the 900 references to Joe the plumber. If you think I am dumb enough to trust you have the "average american's" concerns close to your heart by talking to some plumber in Ohio, then you have a very low opinion of my intelligence level indeed. But, true to form, many in the media lauded this move by McCain, because they obviously think you and I (probably more so you than I) are morons.

Now, with all that said, I will leave you with a couple excellent fact-check sites where you can actually see who said what, and how factual or untruthful their statements were. I found a good one here and here. The truth is, McCain supporters will ignore the lies that he threw out, and the Obama supporters will turn a blind-eye to the distortions and lies he spewed. But both are politicians, and they both are slippery. You can't just point out one is a liar, and then trust the other one.

So, at the end of the "debate" process, I certainly have to confirm that my opinion of Obama is much more favorable than the impression I have of McCain. Again, just look at the debate. Yes, Obama smiled and sneered on and off. It's hard not to when you're getting lied about over and over again, I'm sure. It's no excuse, either way. However, McCain snickered, jibed, mocked, and rolled his eyes, as well as interupted on occasion. In my book, that is flat-out rude behavior. It is childish. Obama acted like an adult 90% of the time. McCain acted like an adult maybe 70% of the time. I don't want a child in the White House. I want a mature, intelligent, respectable individual. And on this point, I respect Obama overall, much more than I respect McCain.

From my perspective, the problem is not that we don't know enough about Obama. We have heard allegation after accusation, again and again. And he has answered them, most of the time gracefully, again and again. The one we don't know about is McCain. There are lot of skeletons in his closet, and we haven't even heard about them. McCain hasn't even addressed some of them, even once. I have referred to them a few times on facebook and on this blog. The fact that the media don't bring them up (the liberal media, remember), and McCain doesn't even have to answer, really gives me pause.

But all in all, I am just happy to have a fairly decent debate to finish out the process.

Postscript: Now, a moment of self-effication. I am about as fair-weather a guy as there can be. I cheer for BYU against Wyoming almost every year. Why? Because BYU is better than UW almost every year. I cheer for the Arizona Cardinals only when they play the Dallas Cowboys in football, because my brothers like Dallas. I don't cheer for Arizona any other time, because they are terrible. Point is, I know McCain is going down, and going down in brilliant, majestic, orange and red flames. I'm not going to defend the guy. He doesn't even deserve to win. Besides, the guy said I didn't have to be scared if Obama is president.

And on this rare occasion, I believe him.

Obama - McCain, Debate III

I thought it would be fun to run down the things I feel almost certain we will hear during the debate tonight. I feel certain because I have watched the first two debates, as well as the VP debate, and these lines were used over and over again. I just wanted to see if I could predict with much accuracy, after listening to the previous "debates."

1. Obama - "The instability of the economy is a verdict on eight years of failed economic policy espoused by the Bush Administration, a policy which John McCain supports, which is based mainly on "trickle-down economics."

2. McCain - "Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. Look at the record, my friends."
Obama responds, "That's not true."

3. Obama - "I will give a tax cut to 95 percent of the American people. If you make $250,000 or less, you will see no tax increases."

4. McCain - "I will cut spending, my friends."
Obama - "So will I."

5. McCain - "Obama's health care plan is putting government in charge of the health care system, my friends."
Obama - "That's not true, and he's not your friend."

6. Obama - "We need to be energy independent."
McCain - "I agree, my friends."

7. McCain - "Obama hangs out with terrorists."
Obama - "I don't know what you're talking about, but if you're referring to Bill Ayers, I barely know the guy."

8. McCain - "Why won't Senator Obama say the surge succeeded? We have succeded in Iraq. We are succeeding. I've been to Iraq. I've talked to the soldiers. Their message to the people here is: 'Let us win.'"
Obama - "You said before the invasion of Iraq that we would be greeted as liberators."
McCain - "You voted against funding the troops."
Obama - "That's not true."
Moderator - "Time's up."

By now you are saying, wait a minute, you keep acting like there is actually going to be some discussion and possibly some debate during the "debate."

I know, I didn't really think it was going to happen that way, but who knows, maybe tonight we'll get lucky. All I really needed to say was, just watch either debate I or II and you will hear just about the same as you would in tonight's contest.

One thing's for sure, I'll be looking forward to SNL's rendition of the debate tomorrow night on NBC.

You might be more entertained if you watch this superb YouTube video.

Do I Have a Crush?

Yesterday I substitute taught, went to church to practice the organ, had a few bites of dinner, and then hopped on my bicycle again to ride over to 24-hour Fitness, where I have access to CNN for $29.00/month (since we don't have cable).

Why did I take this course of action? I think it might be because I have a crush. Don't tell. The guest scheduled to be on Larry King Live that night was Michelle Obama, Barack Obama's wife. By the way, just to be fair, I think Larry has a crush on her, too.

I have listened to the woman speak several times, and have always been impressed with her strength, and with her intelligence. I know there were one or two incidents where she supposedly "misspoke," or bashed white people and/or America. None of that really stuck in my mind, because I think she is a very talented, smart woman, and I took those controversies in the proper context.

Well, last night, she impressed me again. Mr. King continued baiting her, nudging her, trying to get her angry, or to talk about controversial things people had said recently. She didn't bite. She was respectful of John McCain, Cindy McCain, of Sarah Palin, of Hillary Clinton, etc. It was such a nice turn from the constant back-and-forth between the candidates.

The one line she kept giving Larry King is when she is out on the campaign trail, no one asks her questions about these fabricated controversies. And if you think about it, why would they? These are people who are worried about making ends meet. Maybe they've lost their job. Maybe they're worried about how they will provide nutritious food and adequate clothing for their children, as well as appropriate housing; being able to pay for the mortgage.

Why would they care if McCain referred to Obama as "that one?"

So Michelle Obama impressed me again. One of the other great things she said during the interview was when King asked her what she thought about Cindy McCain saying Obama's campaign is the dirtiest in U.S. history. Michelle said it's just not true, and her mother taught her, when something is not true, you just don't pay it any mind.

I have been impressed with the tone that Barack and Michelle have used throughout the majority of this presidential campaign. And in the context of the above comment, I think that is why John McCain is getting desperate now. He is flailing, he is kicking, he's throwing out any allegation or fabrication that he can think of to put a kink in Obama's armor. But none of it is sticking, since almost all of it is either misleading, or blatantly false.

Are Obama and McCain both politicians, both senators? Sure. Do they stretch the truth, and even border on lying, time and again? And I assure you, I don't like personal attacks, true or not. But McCain has been the dirtier player. Most of what Obama is saying about McCain is right on the money. Most of what McCain is saying about Obama is just to scare people into voting against the Illinois senator. That's why McCain is going to get hammered come election day. I mean that literally and figuratively. He has nothing to offer on immigration, on the war on terror, on the economy, on fixing America. All he has is a bunch of attempts to stir the people up against Obama. It hasn't worked for 18 months, and he is going down with a sinking ship.

It's disappointing to see so many support the dirtiest politician in the race - John McCain. But then again, they are the ones who supported George Walker Bush for president even though Bush viciously brought down McCain's campaign in 2000. They are the ones who stood by while John Kerry got swift-boated in 2004. I am proud to say I never voted for that man (Bush). But to each his own. I guess it doesn't matter how dirty a person is, if they can just get people to believe that the other guy is scarier. But while Cindy McCain is out stumping for her husband, calling Obama the dirtiest, Michelle Obama can just sit back and play nice, since her husband actually has a platform to run on.

Geez, and to think I am not even going to vote for Obama. Maybe I will vote for his wife.

P.S. I think it is funny that the founder of the organization of which Barack Obama and William Ayers were a part, is a John McCain-backer. So Obama's nearly non-existant association with a man makes him "terrorist's pal," but being endorsed by the person that more or less hired the same man, is just a-ok. But that's just the way things go, I guess, sort of like John McCain bashing Fannie and Freddie while his campaign manager is a former lobbyist for those buisinesses (making something to the tune of $2 million). Unlike most of what McCain says about Obama, that is a true fact.

Republicans Blame, McCain Attacks

Some curious observations: the Republican Party, the party of responsibility, and self-reliance, seems to always pay lip service to its creeds, until it is not advantageous to do so.

Then they start blaming everyone else. John McCain is already acknowledging that if the debate centers on the economy, he will lose the election.

So he's starting to attack. Keep in mind, his personal attacks will be cloaked in broad, fuzzy terms, to make them sound less malicious. Meanwhile, his surrogates will call Obama a terrorist, a Muslim, the n-word, or make up whatever false claims necessary to scare the American people.

Notice how McCain's big line is, "We don't know enough about Obama." Nevermind Obama has answered any and all the questions we supposedly don't know about him, and if you have an Internet connection, and a pulse, you can find them. Regardless, people will say they are not prejudiced, they are only voting for McCain because Obama has a scary name. Nope, no prejudice there.

Then there's the Ayers connection. For that, I turn to Media Matters, one of my favorite sites, because Bill O'Reilly hates them so much.

On October 4, The New York Times published a 2,140-word front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention, let alone devote an entire article to, Sen. John McCain's relationship with radio host and convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, in its October 4 article, the Times quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and has written that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." The Times, moreover, quoted McCain criticizing Obama for his association with Ayers without noting that Chapman has faulted McCain for what Chapman described as McCain's "howling hypocrisy on the subject."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character."

However, I've learned long ago, that if you're a terrorist, that's all there is to it. If you're NOT a terrorist, as I'm sure Liddy is NOT in the mind of conservatives, because they agree with his views, then you can plot to kill people, bomb things, and imply shooting a president and his wife (if they are democrats). That still doesn't make you a terrorist.

On the other hand, if you ARE a terrorist, then no matter what you say or do, you ARE a terrorist. That labeling reflex in conservatives is just so powerful and strong.

Finally, there's the Keating scandal, which we will need to examine more in the coming days.

Meanwhile, be wary. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, your mom, they're all going to be making greater and greater fabrications about Obama.

I will never be able to make this point the way I would like: is it about Obama? Or is it about, how can I trust someone who lies about another candidate just to win an election. I am almost certainly not voting for Obama. I'm just trying to show how hypocritical the far-right are in their characterizations. They'll vote for McCain because he's the "lesser of two evils." Meanwhile, they swallow all kinds of garbage just to be able to do so. First and foremost, they've elected a dishonest person.

But Republicons will respond, Obama is dishonest, too, and I'm sure he is. Then the party of responsibility will blame having to vote for McCain on Obama. The party of responsibility will blame the bad economy on the democrats. The party of responsibility will blame Bush's low approval ratings on the biased left-wing media. How responsible of them. Vote for a liar, support a liar (Bush), but always put the blame elsewhere.

The party of responsibility can't even defend McCain. All they can say is, his policies are better than Obama's. Well, let me tell you, I suck at basketball, but I am WAY better than my two-year old. So I guess I'm pretty dang awesome.

SNL gets 'Mavericky;' Daily Show Gold

Watch this SNL clip with your conservative friends. Watch them get all indignant over the biased comedy show writers. Nevermind that Tina Fey might even sound more intelligent as Sarah Palin than Palin herself.

Take this excerpt from a recent column written by the conservative Kathleen Parker:

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama's numbers, Palin blustered wordily: "I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?" If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.



McCain has nothing left. So he's going to start the "swift-boat" attacks. I suggest you look up McCain-Liddy, or McCain-Keating on google, so you can be "fair and balanced."
____________________________________________________________________

Jon Stewart takes Congress to task for taking two weeks to pass an emergency bill, and congratulating themselves for it. Gosh, he's good.

Sarah Palin is an Idiot; Tina Fey, My New Hero

I thought Sarah Palin was a great choice for John McCain, until I heard her speak. If you can translate her incoherency, let me know.



And if you can explain how she has foreign policy experience because she is next to Russia and Canada in Alaska, in a way that sounds less retarded, please do so.



This explains why Tina Fey has become my new hero. They can do Sarah Palin sketches up until the election, or until McCain kicks her off the ticket, because Palin is going to sink him.

We Are All Seduced (part 2)

I have never been more angry at President Bush than I am right now. There. I said it. I have thought some awful things about him, have tried to hold those opinions at bay, and have had all of them reinforced and confirmed to me through the current crisis.

What an arrogant fool. What a loser. This man, who up until a week ago, only had things to say about the economy like, "our economy is healthy," and baloney like, "we only have five percent unemployment," and "people are just focusing on the negative." What an idiot. And now he expects me to trust him with 700 billion dollars more, after he's lied, and lied, and lied, about the state of the nation, for seven and a half years.

If you can vote republican again after having this man as president, you are a special person. I don't want to touch a republican with a 100-foot pole.

Except for one: here's what he has to say about Mr. President's bailout plan.

- Expletives were self-deleted -
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary. The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question? Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty, Ron Paul

We Are All Seduced (part 1)

The other day I got an email forward with a picture of a pick-up truck that had the words, "I'm a REPUBLICAN, because EVERYONE can't be on WELFARE," on the back. I don't know why, but terse bloviations like that just really make my blood boil a smidgen. Once I got over it, and turned on the news for the day, I just had to laugh. Bailouts, bailouts, bailouts.

Here's the short of the story: if you are a democrat or a republican, you are part of the problem. Grant it, we all are seduced to various degrees, but if you are a democrat or a republican, you are likely going to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain. So, you're supposedly not for welfare, but your candidate is for the biggest bailout ever in the history of the United States, since the Great Depression.

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about it. He's telling the truth, something you aren't getting from the media, from Obama, or from McCain or President Bush. If you support them, you may say you oppose welfare; welfare for the poor "lazy" people. But you are voting for corporate welfare, make no doubt about it. It's lamentable, and it's the truth. ___________________________________________________________________

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception. The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder.

Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters." That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook.

The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh. Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people.

The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care? When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media? Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty, Ron Paul

Ron Paul Speaks, McCain: the Lipstick-Wearing Pig

Texas representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul held a press conference today, detailing how he rejected an invitation from the John McCain campaign to back the senator. He urged people to vote for one of the four candidates running on third-party tickets: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

He also called the current two-party election system a charade. The vast majority of people realize this, but they continue voting for the "lesser of two evils."

Really, the candidates talk about how different they are, when they are not really different at all. They both talk about change, but neither one stands for anything but the status quo.




In related news, the 'charade' continued, and this writer concluded he will not vote for John McCain.

Speaking of McCain's economic policy, Barack Obama used the phrase, 'you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig,' alluding to the congruences between McCain's economic plan and George W. Bush's plan. McCain's camp latched onto the statement, calling Obama a sexist, because apparently Sarah Palin wears lipstick. Good for you, McCain. Way to raise the level of debate. I am glad to have one choice eliminated. If only Ron Paul would run!



P.S. I don't see what the big deal is, even if Obama was calling Palin a pig. Palin called herself a pit bull at the Republican National Convention. I think pigs are much more cuddly and cute. I guess Palin is the pit bull, and McCain is the pig (but one of the uncuddly, uncute types).

Daily Show Gems

Thank goodness for John Stewart. He is one of the only intelligent people out there, who reminds us what candidates and pundits said, sometimes just a few weeks ago, contrasted with what they say now.

Not surprising, you might guess, that it's often just the opposite of what they said before. These folks are professional double-standard-bearers. And they take for granted that we're going to be stupid enough to forget. Thank you to The Daily Show for reminding us.

My True Feelings for McCain

All right. I've tried to mask it. I've tried to downplay it. I've tried to give the benefit of the doubt.

I even came within a sliver of deciding to vote for presidential candidate John Sydney McCain III after he chose Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate. Her story seems very compelling, and she seems to be an average, every day american, who will fight to reform some of the nonsense that goes on in Washington. The more I learned about her, the more I was impressed. I listened to her acceptance speech this week, and I was again pleasantly pleased.

Then it happened - I listened to John McCain again. I listened to him give his speech last night, and all of the "benefit of the doubt," crap just hit the fan. And now it comes out in full force: I do not like John McCain. I don't like what he stands for. I don't like to listen to him speak. I don't like his flip-flops. I don't like him. Period.

I don't want to hear about your POW Vietnam experiences anymore, McCain. I've listened to it over and over and over again. There are thousands of soldiers who were just as brave and selfless as you. That doesn't make them good candidates for president alone. So stop trumpeting your heroism all day long. It sounds self-serving, which seems to be just the opposite of how most real war heroes actually conduct themselves. I don't want to hear it.

I am not going to vote for a guy just because I'm afraid of what the other scary muslim guy (Obama) might do.

Here's a good video for those of you who feel John McCain is a straight-talking "maverick."

And here's one more.



So I'm coming out right now. It is not very likely that I will vote for John Sydney McCain III. Not very likely at all.

P.S. For those of you who need it spelled out for you: this is still not an endorsement of Barack Obama. That would look like, "I am going to vote for Obama." I also nowhere said I would not vote for McCain. I just said it's not likely at this time. But let's be honest: I don't think I will come out and say who I will vote for, or who I voted for - after the saga has concluded. It just makes things much more intriguing for those of you in the dark, wondering - "what is this crazy weirdo really thinking?"