A Worthless Attack

"Palling around with terrorists" is the exact wording Sarah Palin used this past week. She was reffering to the fact that Barack Obama lives in the same Chicago neighborhood as Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen, a domestic terrorist group from the 1960s and 70s.

There are three main problems I have with this statement. First of all, on the most basic level is Palin's word choice. I doubt that she seriously thinks Barack has been affiliated with multiple terrorists, but I don't doubt for a second that that is what she wanted listeners to think. Saying "terrorists" in my opinion was a blantant attempt to misrepresent the truth. Oh well.

Second of all, almost everyone has ooncluded that Barack barely knows the guy. They live three blocks away from eachother in Chicago, and thier kids go to the same school. Barack never knew Ayers when he was involved with illegal activity, which mostly occured when Barack was eight years old. Even now, the two don't talk, don't "hang out" and certainly don't "pal around." Obama is not denying that he's talked to the guy before, but to call them friends is rediculous, and to suggest that Barack has been hanging out with "terrorists" is even worse, considering Barack was 8 when the Weathermen were declared a domestic terrorist organization.

The last thing is the actual history of the Weathermen. Palin is using scare tactics, she wants people to believe that Barack Hussein Obama is spending time with Muslim terrorists that have been killing people all over the world. Obviously that is not true, and it isn't what Palin said, but that's what she was going for. The Weathermen started off as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) a college group that wanted to protest certian actions by the Government.

At some point, they became the Weathermen and aligned themselves with organizations such as the Black Panthers, who were known to use violent tactics to accomplish thier goals. The Weathermen were headstrong, and misguided, but to think of them as terrorists in the colloquial sense is a bit much. That isn't to say I condone what they did, I think that the bombings they conducted and "days of rage" were idiotic and left an awful mark on this country, but at the same time, they weren't about hurting people. The Weathermen would always warn locations before they bombed them, and only one death has ever been attributed to the organization.

If Barack Obama said he sympathized with the Weathermen, if he was part of the group, if he knew Ayers when this was going on, if he wanted to kill people, I would understand. Since none of that is even close to being true, this entire attack by Palin is awful.

Possibly even worse, when cornered with almost insurmountable evidence showing that her position was not only a misrepresentation but also quite idiotic, Palin refused to back down, responding with "I think it's a viable topic to discuss" or something like that. I'm not sure if that was the actual wording, because I was trying hard not to listen to her. But either way, it shows that she has the same basic problem as President Bush, pride. She's wrong, she knows it, and yet she refuses to back down. She's going to push this issue until the McCain camp tells her to stop (which should be happening in 5.....4.....3.....2.....there you go.) They know as well as most strategists know that this is a non-starter. Anyone with any sense will realize she is misrepresenting the truth, and anyone willing to believe what she is saying wouldn't be voting Obama anyways. I don't get it....

I guess saying that "Barack Obama lives three blocks away from a washed up wannabe Che Guavara currently serving as a Professor of Education at the University of Chicago with a wife and kids" isn't as good a stump line.

Usually attacks don't get me this riled up (hey they make things interesting right?) but this one is just stupid.

That's all folks.

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.

Electoral College- Editorial

We hear certain phrases all the time nowadays. Phrases like "red state" and "blue state" are thrown around casually by pundits and radio commentators all the time. Pretty much everyone knows the meaning of them, too; if your state is branded "red," it is leaning towards the Republicans, and if it's "blue," it's going to the Democrats. Even after all of the states have been categorized individually, the pundits start grouping entire regions together. Who that's reading this hasn't been lead to believe that the South is one single Republican voting entity?

So the question that many people eventually come to is reasonable. If my state or region is already pretty much decided, then why should I bother to vote anyways? People realize that because of the electoral college system in Presidential elections, no matter how many votes a candidate wins by in any particular state, they still win the same number of electoral votes.

Due to this system we use, people in "safe" states feel that their votes don't even matter. There are certain reasons that the electoral college was created in the first place. James Madison argued that the system kept in line with the Federalist nature of our country, giving some electoral power to the people and some to the states, while some at the Constitutional Convention feared elections would become too volatile if left completely to the states, with each delegation always voting for a "hometown" candidate. Both are legitimate arguments, but in my mind both seem outdated.

As we've seen numerous times, the Constitution is a living document. The reason people like Jefferson and Madison included ways to modify it serves as enough example that they knew it wasn't perfect. It was meant to change with the times, to a certain degree, while still retaining the same core principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There are plenty of arguments against an Electoral College, and many legislators are beginning to listen to the complaints of angry voters. The system we have now makes the national popular vote irrelevant. At face value that might not sound like a bad thing, since nearly ever single winner of the national popular vote has also become President. Yet in the elections of 1876, 1888, and most famously, 2000, the person with the most total votes was not elected.

The irrelevance of the national popular vote is bad, but not as bad as the different situations the electoral college creates amongst the states. If you're a candidate, and you already know that you're going to win a certain state, since it has always voted for people like you in the past, why would you campaign there? Why would you pay special attention to their interests? You would most likely pay the most attention to those "toss up" states that we hear so much about, giving those states much more influence in Presidential elections, thus betraying the federal nature of our constitution.

So if you ever hear your parents saying they aren't voting because "my vote doesn't matter," don't be so quick to assume they are apathetic to the election in general. It is quite possible that they are at least partially correct. The electoral college discourages voter turnout in states like Connecticut. The Supreme Court has held that each American is entitled to one vote, equal in value to any other American. It's a shame it doesn't always seem that way.

Sarah Palin's Experience?

As you all know, Sarah Palin has been chosen as McCain's running mate. As you also know, one of the main things that McCain is running on is his experience. He claims Obama is bad because he is inexperienced. I didn't know much about Palin until recently, while Biden is a seasoned member of Congress and very experienced. This is the experience that Palin has brought to the Republican ticket.

First off, Sarah Palin is currently the governor of Alaska, which the McCain campaign is quick to point out is "the biggest state in the country." Yes, but it only has a population of about 670,000. To compare, my home state of Connecticut has about 3,510,000. So yes, being a governor is a hard job, but Palin only had about 1/5 of the citizens that Jodi Rell is responsible for. Also, she has only been the governor for less than two years (20 months, to be exact). Before that, she was the "Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission" for a year, which I know little about, but it is definitely not executive experience. She was on the town council of Wasilla, a town with about 8,000 people in it, for 4 years. She then became its mayor, which she did for 6 years.

How do these things qualify her to be a vice president? She has no degree in anything to do with politics (she majored in journalism), has never been involved in national government, and has zero foreign policy experience (and no, FOXNEWS, being near Russia does not count as foreign policy experience). What is it that she is helping McCain to do? Is this just an attempt to consolidate the Hillary Clinton supporters who went over to the McCain camp after Obama won the nomination? McCain's reasoning is material for another blog.

And yes, it is important to question Palin's experience. Not because experience is important, but because it is what the McCain campaign has been preaching this entire election season. If they can't hold up to their own standards, whose standards will they follow?

PS thank you to Connor Mullen for providing a lot of the info.

A Real Unifying Move

Both John McCain and Barack Obama are claiming to be presidents who will reach across the aisle, nonpartisan, more loyal to their country than their party, or even "mavericks." They also both claim that Washington is broken, that they will get rid of partisan gridlock and get the nation moving again. It sounds like they both have the same goal, to keep Congress from being stuck in a non-productive rut.

And what is one of the major factors that keeps Congress from getting anything done? The presidential veto. The president can block a bill, agreed upon by Congress, from becoming a law with a simple signature (or maybe he draws a big X through it. I'm not sure about the actual technique of the veto). Congress is theoretically able to override vetoes with a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate. This requires more debate, time that could be spent on other issues. OVerrides are very hard to accompish, and only 4% of all of the vetoes in history have been overridden (source). Vetoes may not be the only thing keeping Congress from getting anything done, but they are definitely a factor.

This whole practice of partisan vetoes started with Andrew Jackson (correct me if I'm wrong). Before him, the veto was only used if a bill was deemed unconstitutional by the president. But Jackson vetoed anything he didn't agree with, starting the practice that continues to this day. George W. Bush has made a total of 12 vetoes, including 2 bills that would re-authorize an existing children's healthcare program, 2 that would allow more stem cell research, and 1 that would ban waterboarding.

To me, Congress represents the people much more than the president, and that the president shouldn't block bills that Congress has decided upon unless they are unconstitutional. The partisan veto has been a non-issue for far too long and it deserves to be talked about in the mass media. How about one of these "mavericks" changes the course of history and promises not to use their veto power for partisan agendas? That would really set them apart as willing unify the country and get it moving again.

Overkill in the Defense Budget

Alright everyone, I'd like to show you all a video I came across. Yes, it's a cartoon. Yes, it stars one of the guys from Ben&Jerry's ice cream. Yes, he uses Oreos in it to represent spending. I won't deny that it's quite simplified.

But simplification is what we need for the issue of the budget. It's so gigantic that he has to use one cookie to represent TEN BILLION DOLLARS. The Pentagon receives 40 cookies, or 400 BILLION DOLLARS per year. Just watch the video to see how much other things get.

And for all you people who believe that we shouldn't completely shut the Pentagon off of all federal funds, which I assume is most of us, you'll like his solution. He doesn't say to take all of the Pentagon's money, or half, or even a quarter. He proposes that we simply take 5 "cookies" (50 billion dollars, or 1/8 of the Pentagon's budget), to help schools, feed every hungry child ON THE PLANET, and even more. I don't see why the country has to spend so much on "defense" when we have more problems than that.

Check out the video and comment on what you think about it.

And just to tell everyone, I'm not basing all of my beliefs on this one video that I've stumbled upon. It's short, it's cute, and it's informative. But it definitely doesn't replace reading up on the subject, which I have done. Here's a great book I'm currently reading about American militarism and how ridiculously high Defense spending is:

http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Republic-American/dp/0805070044

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.