Better than expected? Really?

So after watching last night's VP debate between Biden and Palin, I've got a few things that I'd like to get off my chest. I'm going to try to keep this from being a rant, but if it starts straying into that territory, then I apologize.

There has been a lot of talk in the news today, I'm sure you've heard it wherever you are, that Sarah Palin actually did "pretty well" last night. Not many people (save for the 16 "undecided" voters polled on Faux News) are going so far as to say Palin actually won the debate, but there has been POSITIVE talk for once about her performance. People from David Gergen to George Stephanopoulos to Donna Brazile are all saying that Palin performed "about as well as she could have," and that they were "impressed" with how well she held herself together. Suddenly expressing the belief that Palin did "alright" has become the latest political fad, joining the pantheon of "we support Bush" following 9/11 and "Al Gore thinks he invented pants" during the 2000 election.

My question is simple. If you think that Palin did "good," what is your justification. Are you saying that she seemed more put together than she did in her interviews with Katie Couric? Are you saying that she kept that down home jargon that has endeared Americans to her so far? Are you saying that she didn't back down and spoke straight to the American people? Are you saying that she looked nice? Are you saying that she performed "better than you thought she would?" Either way, there is one thing all of those have in common. They are POLITICAL statements. Sarah Palin is a fantastic politician. Amazing, even. She certainly knows how to work a crowd, how to get people on her side, and how to win votes.

That being said, if you actually want to say that she did "good" in this debate, there is no way you can be saying it because of her actual answers. She seemed over-rehearsed (something Obama has also had problems with). She skirted nearly every question of any significance, and when pushed to give real answers, responded with "Well I may not be answering the way you or the moderator want me to." That is the exact kind of statement that will win voters but will destroy our country. This is honestly a woman seeking office just for the hell of it. It is painfully clear that more than 90% of the time, she has no idea what she is talking about, and even when she does, she can't come up with anything to back up her ideas.

The fact that her political skills are outweighing her lack of knowledge or experience is troubling to me. It is sad that people are able to look past the fact that she is clearly not qualified to hold this position because of the way she talks, or the kind of words she uses, like "Joe six pack American." It's possibly even more troubling that John McCain would select her as a VP candidate just because she might win him a few extra votes. It is just as obvious to him that this woman should never be on this stage, and watching him try to keep his cheeks from turning bright red with embarrassment during those Couric interviews was entertainment in and of itself. I'm not trying to bash John McCain, but it is disappointing to me that he would actually risk that woman (who he MUST not actually believe in) becoming President just to win an election.

The very notion that anyone thinks Palin has the experience or knowledge necessary to be second in command is ludicrous to me. It scares me that the media is focusing on her political talent and calling her performance "good" when a simple evaluation of the actual SUBSTANCE shows that she crashed and burned.

I'm not sure when "she's not that bad" or "she did better than I expected her to" became the vetting procedure of the American voter. I'm not sure at what point Republican voters need to stop trying to convince themselves she's the right person for the job and let their real feelings out. I'm not sure at what point I need to stop expecting Palin to be more than she is, which is a small town Mayor forced into an impossible situation. I'm not sure at what point America needs to wake up.

BREAKING: John McCain Chooses Sarah Palin as VP

From McCain's official Website: U.S. Senator John McCain today announced that he has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate and to serve as his vice president.

Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington.



Analysis and more information to come.

"Why We Fight" Movie Review

I just finished watching the film "Why We Fight," a documentary by Eugene Jarecki. I wasn't sure what to expect going into it, as I noticed that it had interviews of both John McCain and Chalmers Johnson, and followed the story of a man joining the army, and of a veteran who now forbids her children to join the armed forces. All of this made for a very balanced and nonpartisan look at what makes our nation go to war.

The backbone of this film (and many other looks at the modern military) lies in Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warns the American people of the rising "military-industrial complex." For those of you who are not familiar with the phrase, it is the loose organization between Congress, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. This association is the recipe for the expansion of the military: Congressmen want jobs (from defense contractors) in their home districts to help their own careers, the Pentagon wants more strength and freedom (in the form of new equipment, more bases, and looser rules), and the defense contractors want more money (in the form of government contracts to make weapons of war). The movie investigates the military-industrial complex, and how it affects both the decision-making process in Washington, the media's portrayal of events, and the public's opinions.

Most importantly, Jarecki warns against the United States taking the same path as Rome, changing from a small republic, into an empire, into a superpower and oppressor. To me, this is a nonpartisan issue, one that all Americans can rally around. We do not want the government to be able to take advantage of our patriotism, our love of freedom or our families, and scare us into supporting a war against a non-threat such as Iraq. The documentary also follows the path of Wilton Sketzer, a man whose son died in the World Trade Center, who goes from hating the terrorists and supporting the war in Iraq to realizing that the government lied to support the invasion. I hope that, like Sketzer, people who watch this film will realize that obeying the government isn't the same thing as loving your country. We have to think independently about all government decisions, or else there will be another Vietnam or Iraq, both of which the government blatantly lied the public into supporting.

New York Times Rejects McCain Iraq Essay

The New York Times, who many believe to be a liberal newspaper, has recently rejected an essay that Senator John McCain wrote defending his Iraq War policy. The piece, a lengthy critique of Obama's positions in Iraq, most notably his 16 month timetable, as well as an outlining of his own plans for the future of Iraq, was in response to an Op-Ed article from Barack Obama that was published in the newspaper last week. 

But before the right-wing media starts their inevitable criticism of the "biased, unfair" left-wing newspaper, let us first look at why the article was rejected. In a statement released today, The New York Times said that it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission." So, before we jump to a falsified conclusion, it simply appears that Senator McCain's article was not rejected, merely handed back for another revision. This assumption is confirmed by the New York Times, who stated, "We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past."

My question is, at what point is the New York Times crossing the line of mere publishing and unjustly stepping into the realm of assisting these two candidates in taking public potshots at each other? Senator Obama's July 14th essay had taken shots at McCain for not further encouraging the Iraqi government to take control of their own country. Now, just a week later, McCain has attempted to retaliate with his own Op-Ed piece bluntly criticizing Obama, saying, "[He] seems to have learned nothing from recent history." I ask again. Is The New York Times encouraging this public squabble between candidates? Food for thought. But I digress.

Ultimately, only time will tell if The New York Times will publish Senator McCain's Op-Ed piece. In my opinion, it is only fair. I may not agree with the Senator on the issues, and I most certainly do not in most cases, but if the newspaper allows for Senator Obama to write a piece that is critical of Senator McCain's policies as well as his handling of key issues that are essential to victory in the November Presidential Elections, it is only right that Senator McCain has a chance to refute the points that Senator Obama presented.

I like to call that the Straight Talk Express. 

Question of the Day: A Family Affair

Recently there has been a lot of attention regarding the candidates family. Media outlets have been arguing lately about whether the American public should factor in the candidates wives when they hit the polling stations in November. I've seen polls asking voters how they feel about Mrs. McCain and Obama, whether they would want to "hang out" with them, whether the people think they are "good wives" or "loyal confidants" of their husbands. Newsweek even ran a cover story on Cindy McCain a few weeks ago, with an accompanying article that examines who she is and if she's ready to be First Lady.

There has also been a lot of attention on the candidates children. Barack Obama has recently expressed regret at allowing the TV show "Access Hollywood" to interview his children. He said that he doesn't want the children to be exposed to politics or the media at so young an age, yet we now see those very same children being debated over on CNN and MSNBC.

So my question is, where do we draw the line? At what point does our vetting of the potential Presidents become too personal. Is it worth looking into their family situations when we are trying to make our choice as to who would make the best President, or is that irrelevant. Would a ditsy, ineffective first lady really be a reason to vote against a candidate that you would otherwise vote for? What role do the children play in all of this? I want to hear your opinions, leave a comment.

Republicans Ready To Fight

I will be the first to admit that I have been one of Senator Obama's greatest supporters throughout his entire struggle with Senator Clinton and the ongoing war of words with Senator McCain. But with that being said, I will also be the first to acknowledge that a candidate has made a mistake. Lately, it appears Obama has been waffling on core liberal issues and values. Maybe I have just been watching too much CNN, but seeing as the Senator's blog has been littered with negative commentary the past few weeks, I do not believe I am the only one who sees it.

For example, the Iraq war. One of Obama's key principles has been that if elected, he will have all American soldiers pulled out within the first 16 months of his presidency. We have heard it thousands of times. But lately, all of this has been called into question. Senator John McCain said that Obama's remarks on Iraq "have left a significant question as to exactly what he intends." But, despite the growing concerns, Obama denied any suggestion that he was shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

We all know that whenever a Democratic nominee makes a seemingly innocuous comment on a key issue, the Republican hounds come out in full force. Instantly, the Republican National Committee sent out a chain email stating that Obama was attempting to back out of his own policy of withdrawing troops within 16 months. But ex-presidential nominee John Kerry, who himself know a little something about the Republican Machine (anyone remember Swiftboat?), was there to back up Senator Obama:

The Republicans, and John McCain specifically, are trying desperately to get away from the reality of John McCain's position, which is that he has a plan for staying in Iraq and Barack Obama has a plan for getting out of Iraq...[Obama's position] has not changed whatsoever in his fundamental determination to end the war.

In the end, I have come to the realization that I overreacted. At some point, Obama would have to change from the saint that he was once viewed as to a true politician, and this has been a difficult transformation for me. But even if Obama does add a few months to his 16 month withdrawal, anything is better than McCain's plan for 16 years or 16 decades or even 16 lifetimes. 

The Anticlimax

When Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee back about a month ago, you could feel the excitement in the Democratic party and its supporters. It was one hell of a race between Hillary and Barack, but it had finally come to an end. That was the starting point of the battle between John McCain and Barack Obama – a race, mind you, which was supposed to be unique.

However, sitting here about a month later, I'm wondering what's so different. Yes, Barack is black, that's definitely something incredible, but I'm talking about the issues. Taxes, the economy, war plans, haven't we already heard this before? What I'm trying to get at is so far, this race between Obama and McCain has been the ultimate anticlimax. What do you think?

Slick Barry

So in an expected move, Obama has officially decided to forgo the 85 million dollars in campaign funds from the Government and continue to run on his own money that he is raising from supporters. It sounds really great when he gets on TV and talks about how he is "breaking free from a broken system," and it sure looks awesome when on his website, under his "donate" button, it says "declare your independence" from the public financing. But here's one supporter thats none too pleased with this decision

Months ago, when Barack wasn't the clear front-runner, and wasn't raising astronomical sums of money, he was all over the campaign trail talking about how public financing of campaigns is important, and how he would take the money. Keep in mind that at that point in time, 85 million probably wasn't looking so bad. Had the primaries ended there, who's to say he wouldn't have taken the money right on the spot? I guarantee it would have.

Now, however, he is a rock star. He's raising millions like its nothing, and 85 million is chump change compared to what he could probably raise on his own, and he knows it. Should he accept the public financing, he can't spend any of his own raised money, so taking it would make no sense. Except, of course, if he wanted to keep his word.

Now he's changed the rhetoric. He's going off about how "the system is broken" and how taxpayers shouldn't be financing general election campaigns. Because he's not accepting the funds, now he can pour as much money as he wants into this campaign....substantially more than McCain, especially if McCain chooses to take the 85 million, which I don't think he will now that Barack has chosen not to take it.

It becomes an issue of trust. Barack had said in the past that he was open to taking the public funds, but now that he suddenly has more money on hand, the entire message has changed. Now he's acting like the system is archaic and wrong. I think that the 85 million cap for public financing is a GOOD thing. It keeps the playing field even, and keeps the negative campaigning to a relative low. Lets see how Barack chooses to use all of this extra money that he will have. I don't suspect he will be running McCain off the air with negative campaigning, but I do suspect he will be using it to buy influence in areas he can't reach. It may end up buying votes, and thats the largest crime at all.

He has created a great talking point for McCain, who can try to paint him as a flip-flopper, which is pretty much a death sentence for a young democrat in today's electorate. Obama needs to work hard to make this a non-issue, or something that he thought would help could end up coming back and biting him in the...well it seems appropriate to say "wallet-area."

The Fight Goes On, and On, and On, and On....

We've had a little break in the primary action as of late, and its given me a chance to take a step back and think about what's really going on in the Democratic Party right now.

Two very unique candidates are battling it out for the right to run for President, not the right to BE president, but just to have the chance to run. They are spending millions upon millions of dollars, making 4-5 speeches per day, traveling all across the country, giving countless interviews, and having their entire lives recorded by the national media. Why are they doing all this? Why would they subject themselves to such sucky conditions? Why won't one of them just give up already?

We haven't seen a primary election cycle like this in decades. These two really couldn't be closer right now, whether it be in the public opinion (Hillary now holds a small lead in national polls) or delegate count (which Barack currently controls). They both think that they have the people on their side, like they are what is right for this country. What they don't realize is that they are slowly destroying their chances at a victory in November, when it really counts.

As the democrats have been fighting it out for months and months in the primaries, in the media, John McCain has been rallying the troops, securing the base. The democrats are attacking each other and convincing America that the other isn't right for the job, while John McCain is convincing everyone that he is right for the job. All I've seen lately covering the race is negative press regarding each of the democrats, press that the American people are reading and keeping in the back of their mind, information they will remember in November.

The Republicans have the right idea. They came together and selected a candidate early, and now all he has to do is secure all of those Republican votes, with no one within his own party trying to prove he's an idiot, or incompetant. Even worse for the democrats, no one in the Democratic party is focusing on McCain either. They are devoting so much time to the primary election that they have lost sight of their ultimate goal, to put a democrat in office. And this isn't necessarily a fault of Democratic America, they just can't make up their damn minds.

It is time to make a decision. This needs to come to an end. If the American people can not choose between the two, then Democratic leadership must. It is time to act, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore. It is time to pick which horse you're going to ride into the fall and kick the other one out. Only the Democratic Party leadership can (through private conversation) nudge one of these candidate out of the race, and they NEED to do it, if the Party has any chance of winning in November. If it doesn't happen directly after the Pennsylvania primaries in April, McCain will continue to gather support, and the democrats will continue to attack each other.

There's a saying I heard one time that "The Democratic party has a strange way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Well, If the democrats can't make up their minds soon, this may be the case once again in 2008.

Rod Parsley: One Man's Personal War With Islam

It was one thing for Presidential hopeful John McCain to accept the endorsement of John Hagee, the evangelical leader who heads a 19,000-member church in San Antonio and called Catholicism "the great whore" back in late February.

But it's even worse accepting the endorsement of Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who is definitely no historian. According to Parsley, "Allah is a demon spirit. America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed...Are we a Christian Nation? I say Yes." Well of course, Mr. Parsley, a majority of our country is Christian based, there's no denying that fact. But to say that the founding of our country was based on exterminating Islam? I'm sure the Founders would have turned in their graves if they had heard that.

Let's bring back some real US history, going all the way back to 1797. A section of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary reads as follows:

As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on Christian religion, as it has itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; And, as the said states never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religion opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So there you have it. I'm not sure if the Reverend knows much about history, but we shouldn't bug him too much about it. After all, pissing off the Muslims won't do him too much harm--more than half the Islamic population already hates the US anyway, why not make it a little bit more. Besides, his narrow minded brain might explode.

John McCain-Superstar, or So He Thinks

John McCain kept President George W. Bush waiting at the White House Wednesday. Call me crazy, but that's just ridiculous. Granted McCain had won the Republican nomination for President the day before, but he kept the President of the United States waiting for him. Need I remind you John McCain that you are still just a Senator from Arizona. You are a war hero, an honorable guy I'm sure, but come on as a military man you should know all about respect. Show the Commander in Chief some. Sure, he's a lame duck. Sure, he's unpopular, but he's still the President. For once, I'm on your side George.