Image by Jameswy.Wang via Flickr

History will be made tonight and it doesn’t matter which party wins. Tomorrow morning we will all wake up to either the 1st black president, or the 1st woman vice president. Those two things alone make this an interesting race. If only those were the only two things of interest.

For the first time in history we have had a sitting president with such a horrible approval rating that we are going to either elect a black man with a foreign name, a name that resembles two of America’s arch enemies, or we are going to elect a woman who doesn’t have a clue as to what her job or the 1st ammendment is and who her own campaign calls a ‘Whack job’.

Thank you George Bush.

I’m going to miss George. I really am. I could always count on him to do or say the wrong thing.

So I will miss him.

I don’t have any clue what to expect from what we are about to get. Sure, I believe that Barack will be statesman that we all hope that his is, or McCain will be the maverick we should all be afraid of. But that doesn’t help to prepare me for what they will actually do when they are in the Oval Office. In 2000, George Bush ran and won on the idea that he would restore honor to the office. Well, that didn’t turn out as planned. Now one party is running on the idea that we are all one and we are all United, while the other seeks to divide us into ‘real’ America and Anti-America.

No matter who wins, over the next few months I hope that we can all find it in ourselves to lay down our partisanship and come together as a whole country. My fear though is that one side will never be able to do this.

If Barack loses this race, millions of voters will never vote again. Why would they when they have witnessed everything that was the beacon of American crumble because of one party, only to have that party win another election. I know I could never muster enough ‘ummph’ to vote again. This is not a threat or a

Image by stevegarfield via Flickr

promise or anything of the sort, it is just the truth of it. Why rally around someone who brings as much hope and inspiration as Barack Obama has done, only to see him lose to an inferior ticket due to lying or exaggerated rhetoric. What would be the point in ever getting excited,inspired and hopeful again?

I don’t believe there is a pundit or voter out there who has looked at this race and said “John McCain ran a brilliant race that should be the mold for all other races” and yet, if he wins, that bad judgment to run such a horrible race will no doubt float over into bad judgment when running a country.

I do not know where this country is headed tonight. All I know is that I am a part of history this time, instead of a student of it. It’s an excitable and yet, sad time.

Book cover via Amazon

Yes, I am sad to see George go and I hope that no matter who gets elected, they follow somewhat in his footsteps and give Jon Stewart 4 more years of comedy and Bill Maher 4 more years of New Rules

The only thing to look forward to if McCain is elected is watching to see if more than 57% of the population can continue to think Sarah Palin is wrong for the Vice President’s job.

Let that sit for a minute……

If 57% of the population thinks you are the wrong person for the job, that you aren’t qualified enough, wouldn’t it stand to reason that you shouldn’t win anything in a democratic election?

I have one final thought to leave you with….On Boston Legal last night the British girl said “it’s a democracy, shouldn’t the one who gets the most votes win?”… the reply “That, would be too easy”

So get up! Go out! Vote early! Vote often.. and don’t make it easy for them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama for president
• American voters head to the polls for historic election
• Palin even less popular in new poll

Ben Stein told Larry King the other night his version of a republican and that pretty much sums of my idea of them also…

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

STEIN: I want to see a return to the republicans like Dwight Eisenhower, balance the budget,small government, civil rights, no foreign adventures, keep the corporate people under control, watch them like hawks and that’s the Dwight Eisenhower Republicans and we’ve drifted far away. If we lose this election, it’s a chance for the party to return to its basics.

If they would just add in some social programs, I think I could be this kind of republican. But it’s the yearning for social programs that kicks me out of that party and into the literal/Democratic party.

Stein’s idea of a republican is also not what the GOP is practicing these days. Today they are all about super-sized spending and super-sized intrusive government. But that is for another blog…I want to talk about a couple of comments I’ve received.

Obama’s plans don’t actually help you. They provide a short-term benefit, but in the long term, even from a welfare point of view, are detrimental, as those who create jobs and wealth will slowly withdraw from the system.

Reading your message, it seems that you are saying that you feel entitled to take the fruit of my labor and utilize it for your own needs. I had always thought that you were a liberal, not a communist. Punishing those of us who work hard, and pair that hard work with a great deal of risk, will destroy our desire to achieve. When that happens, there will be no one left to steal from, I mean over-tax.

Another thing that Obama will ruin is charity. I have given around $15k to the food pantry at my church this year. When I close the doors at my business, or even if I stay open, who is going to fullfill the void I leave? Are you going to give a portion of the money, stolen from me by Obama’s big government, to this food pantry? Doubtful. And because these folks won’t be serviced by the pantry, Obama gets his wish – greater dependance on government help. This will snowball out of control…

There is so much wrong with this and other comments I’ve seen, such as

There is nothing in the constitution that provides for social programs from the federal government. If you want food stamps or free health care, get if from your State. but I am clearly for a far less big and intrusive Federal government that you are. I’m not sure if you recognize limits on Federal power. Is there anything that you think the federal government should not provide? Food (stamps), Housing, job training, daycare, health care, dental care? subsidized mortgages, subsidized anything?

There seems to be this misconception that the only who people would benefit from Obama’s tax breaks are the poorest of poor, or when Obama comes into office it will be food stamps and free healthcare for everyone. There is also this misconception that Obama is talking about implementing this new idea of a progressive tax system and a rebate via a new concept called the earned income child tax credit. Since both of the these programs were not only invented by High-adored Conservative Republicans, but were also strengthen by what I have been told is the “Obama version of the Republican party”, Ronald Regan, I am completely baffled by the outrage.

What both persons commenting don’t understand is that there will always be the poorest of the poor who get food stamps and free-healthcare. It doesn’t matter what president in office so that argument should be out to rest.

Image via Wikipedia

Just because a Democrat is in the oval doesn’t mean the poor will get more free-stuff, just look at the biggest welfare reformer of all times, Bill Clinton, if you doubt that. Even that is not the issue though, the issue is … so what? So what if more people get more in food stamps and some kind of healthcare? Is it a drain on our economy? Yes, but so was that bridge to nowhere that Palin said no thanks to, when she really didn’t and even after she said she did, she kept the damn money. So is the billions that have been mismanaged in the Iraq war. But those are Republican-made spending so they are not evil and despotic, it’s only evil and despotic when the money will go to help a newborn get their polio vaccination or an 4.0 A student pay for their college.

Do I want my friends money taken from him and given to me so I can go out and party like it’s 1999? No. Do I want the same kind of tax-break that Donald Trump has been given over the last 8 years? Yes! Why does he deserve it more than me? Because he is wealthy and he employs thousands of people? Because if he doesn’t get it, then he will pack up and leave the country?

Bullshit on both accounts. First and foremost, under Obama he’ll have to fire his employees,close his doors and move to Ireland. Ya know what? Good, get the fuck out, we don’t want your unpatriotic, extorting ass here anyway and I don’t care how many people you employ! Because guess what? This is America and we still have the best of the best of anything, health professionals,retail stores,entertainment and while you may

Image via Wikipedia

decide to move out, you’ll damn sure be back every chance you get to patronize us in some way.

I want to see all walks of life in this country get some kind of fair taxation, I want to see everyone in this country come together and help one another and I am the unpatriotic one? But when a business owner threatens to send his employees into the financial ruin, leave the country and give another country his buisness and employ their citizens, he’s the patriot? Bullshit!

“I’ll give less to charity” is another reason why we shouldn’t vote for Obama. Again, Bullshit! You cannot hold a gun to a poor person head and threaten them with death if a certain president is elected and call that patriotism. I know Tony Soprano would, but come on! You are extorting churches and charities now to prove your point?

NO, what you are doing is taking your ball and going home because you are pissed that you didn’t win the game. It’s a temper tantrum plain and simple.

This is a great analogy for those against the current progressive tax system

If you went to dinner with 10 people from your company, and you made more than everyone else, and everyone ordered the same exact meal, how do you divide the check?

The bill comes to 100 dollars. (I like round numbers.)

Because you make more than everyone else… you are now required to pay $50 for the meal.

Three of the people make middle income, so they have to pay $15 each.

Three more people make a modicum of income. They pay $5 dollars a piece.

The other three get their meal and the receive $3.33 to go home with.

Is that fair?

To some, it is. To others, it is not.

Is that fair? Of course in a perfect world it is not. Just because some people are more wealthy than others they shouldn’t be forced to pay more. But this is not a perfect or even fair world. For the last 8 years, using the ‘dinner tab’ analogy, the middle income guy has shouldered not only his share, but the share of the bottom guy and the top guy because the poor guy will never have the money no matter who is president and under the current administration and the McCain administration, the top guy isn’t paying his share either. Obama wants to change this, he wants to make the top guy pays his full share so it gives the middle guy a little bit of a break.

This is not socialism. This is not me taking money from my rich friends. This is me telling my rich friends that I can no longer pay my share and their share of the costs to live in the country.

Even Warren Buffet’s blasted the current tax system

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

No, the richest 1% shouldn’t have to have their money taken from them to pay for the people who will always look for the handout, but neither should I.

No, the richest 1% shouldn’t be the only ones to pay for our schools,roads, military and law enforcement, but I shouldn’t be the one to shoulder my burden of the cost and their burden of the cost.

Will Warren Buffet benefit less than his secretary will benefit more is the question. As long as he is paying his share and not making her pay hers and his portion, both will benefit. More money in her pocket gives her more money to spend on his products.

I understand why someone would take their business and their money to another country if their taxes were outrageously high. Rolling back George Bush’s tax credit does not constitute ‘outrageously high’ though.

I understand that noone wants to pay more taxes but don’t ever tell me that you should not have carry your burden of the cost to live in this country because you make more money than me. We all pay to live in this society and if we want to be safe and have a strong military we will have to pay for them, so stop demanding that you should get to pay less because you make so much more.

I love my wealthy friend to death and will miss him when he moves. And while he won’t be able to count on the same things in his new country that I can count on here, what he can count on is that under John McCain, I will still here paying my share and his share ensuring that this country will be here for him when decides to come home and shop. I only hope I will be able to bear this burden and not give up on my country and become one of the poor who is forced to live off the system or else he won’t have a motherland to come back to.

The wealthy can give up and move to another country if they are taxed, but the middle class, when they finally give up or just break will have nowhere to go except to the food stamp office.

• Thomas J. Cady: Republican Presidents Always Ones Responsible For National Debt
• Realists Vs Neocons
• Poll: Public has growing doubts about Palin
• Everybody’s Business: A Familiar Tax Tune, but It’s Not Mine
• What Capitalism needs

Because he knows that we are all Americans and it doesn’t matter if we live in small towns or big cities…”We All Love This Country”

You can either search congress for the ‘anti-americans’.Travel only in the ‘real’ America while dividing yourself from the rest of America..You can keep throwing every attack you can find, whether that be visiting his dying grandmother on a campaign plane, or because he said in down times people hold on to their religion.

Or, you can unite and believe “in the future we can build together..”

Why Obama?

…if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city it can change a state, and if it can change a state it can change a nation, and if it can change the nation it can change the world...

If you can listen to end of that and not feel hope. Not feel inspiration, not feel that “Yes, we can…” Yes, we can be better, we can do better, we can do anything if we stand together…. then Vote for McCain because there is nothing more I or anyone else can do to help you decide.

If you would rather listen to the same old attacks that lost McCain the Republican nomination in 2000? Tune into Fox news or watch any McCain ad, because he has hired the same attack dogs that George Bush used against him.

But if you want change, If you want unity, if you want an end to the last 8 years of division. Vote Obama.

Why Obama?

Sure, it’s easy to be cynical and say it can’t be done… One voice can’t do anything. One man can’t change anything. Why should we hope for anything?

There has never been anything false about hope…. When we have faced down impossible odds, we we’ve been told we’re not ready or we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t.. Generations of Americans have responded……. Yes we can!

Why Obama?

Because… with him we can be the America that is prosperous, caring, respected, feared and envied.

Don’t roll your eyes… Yes, we can.

Let’s get this out of the way, can we..

If we are going to talk about who someone supported in the past and say that it’s relevant today to show their judgment and leadership abilities, that it will give us an idea of who they will bring with them to the white house, lets get it all out there and move on to things that really matter.

Barack has been criticized for his ’ties’ with ACORN. Yes, he did defend them once and yes he did donate money to a subsidiary of theirs. Like Drudge uses pictures to prove that Barack is going to steal your white women, the McCain campaign uses his ties to ACORN as proof that Barack will steal your vote.

Here he is sitting next to Florida Rep. Kendrick at an ACORN-sponsored February 2006 rally, in Miami.

Wait, that’s not Barack Obama… That’s John McCain. I guess the “Maverick” is there to repudiate them like he assures us he can do. I know a picture in this campaign isn’t worth a 1000 words, hell even video isn’t worth anything, but maybe a video will show us all how McCain is going to whip their you know whats…

oh.

Here’s the thing. This rally wasn’t 5 or 10 years ago, it was 2 years ago this week and John McCain wasn’t just there to say “Hi”. He wasn’t there to tell them that they were “destroying the fabric of democracy” and “perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country” he was the key note speaker that day. In fact he has been a great supporter of ACORN over the years.

Either his judgment was wrong 2 years ago, or it is wrong today. Either way John McCain was so much of a supporter of ACORN’s that he traveled to Miami to speak for them, and if association with them is bad judgment then not only does McCain have the same bad judgment, he’s also suffering from forgetfulness since he doesn’t remember this support. The forgetfulness can be explained by age, the bad judgment? Well according to Fox news when Obama does it, can not.

William Ayers.

The idea behind this one is to show that you should be afraid of the Arab Barack Obama because he pals around with terrorists. It doesn’t matter that Obama has denied or reasonably explained it away.

It doesn’t matter that the same republican family that asked Barack to be on the panel with Ayers is also throwing their political support behind McCain, not too mention all the money they have given to Republican, which McCain or any Republican has to yet to address or ‘repudiate’. What matters is Barack associated with a terrorist and that makes him scary and risky and his judgment unfit to be President.

He’s Pallin’ around with terrorists…

John McCain as recently as the 2nd debate was boastful of this accomplishment in helping the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan repel the Russian, even using it as evidence that he is somehow, superior to Barack

MCCAIN: First of all, I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

Maybe the other lesson McCain shouldn’t have ignored is the fact that Osama Bin Laden helped to fund those Freedom Fighters that McCain was so pleased to have also helped. John McCain aided,encouraged, and praises the mujahideen, the group funded and aided by Bin Laden, efforts in Afghanistan and is sorry that he didn’t do more to help them.

I guess I shouldn’t look that far back in history and judge McCain. It was a different time back then and Osama Bin Laden was good when we aided him, but then he changed into the despicable man that attacked us is such a horrific way on September 11,2001. But if I can’t judge McCain because a good man can turn bad, why can’t a bad man like Ayers turn into a good, citizen of the year?

Speaking of 9/11. The country we went after in retaliation of that attack was lead by another despicable man, Saddam Hussein. You recognize that name don’t you? You should, the speakers at John McCain’s rallies have said it enough. Only they aren’t saying it to remind you of Saddam. No, they are just saying it because it’s Barack Obama’s middle name that’s all…

If Saddam was such a bad person, and we know he was, then by default anyone with his name should also be a bad person, right? The truth is I can’t quite get my head far enough up my ass to see your point, but lets’ go with it anyway.

They have the same name so they must be the same people or have the same values.

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

Oops.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein’s government.

Umm, well.. You see my friends.. I know how to win this war.

Timmons’ activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.
John McCain strongly supported the 1991 military action against Iraq, and as recently as Sunday described Saddam Hussein as a one-time menace to the region who had “stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could.”

Ok, so what do we know. We know that having the same name as a terrorists makes you a terrorist. So what does mean when you hand pick the man who is going to lead your transition team, that by the way is the man who is going to help pick your personal if you are elected President of the United States. What does it mean when that man actually lobbied FOR the terrorist while he was considered a terrorist?

I guess McCain can deny it

But testimony and records made public during Park’s criminal trial, as well as other information uncovered during a United Nations investigation, suggest just the opposite. Virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign was within days conveyed by Vincent to either one or both of Saddam Hussein’s top aides, Tariq Aziz and Nizar Hamdoon. Vincent also testified that he almost always relayed input from the Iraqi aides back to Timmons.

But that just wouldn’t be truthful. Not that truth has mattered much to John McCain lately.

So now that we know that McCain is supported by the founder of the same terrorist panel that Obama served on with Ayers and that McCain is proud of his work with Osama Bin Laden and doesn’t much care that the man in charge of his transition team worked and lobbied for Saddam after the 1st gulf war when he was considered a rogue leader..can we either label McCain as a terrorist sympathizer or just move the fuck on to something that actually matters like I don’t know…. Whether Barack wears boxers or briefs? Because really, If he doesn’t take care of his boys then what kind of President will he be?

Why is McCain even wasting his time and the party’s money. Sure the polls put him pretty much dead even with the Messiah, but c’mon…Hillary was close too. In fact Hillary wound up beating the Messiah only to be questioned every single night “why is she in it” “what does she want” “when will she quit” “what, does she think she can win” “she’s dividing the country” blah blah blah until she was finally tossed away and forgotten like a cheap whore… Didn’t McCain pay any attention? Or has he just forgotten?

Dude, why don’t you just retire already.

Why don’t you just stop your campaign and go back home.

You can’t win.

Hillary won the popular vote and where is she?

It doesn’t matter if you win the popular vote McCain. The electoral vote will go towards the Messiah and they count more than us little people who can‘t decide for ourselves who we want to lead us.. Just like the super-delegates votes counts more that the regular delegate.

McCain, you’re doing nothing but making a mockery out of the Republican party. The mighty-mighty Republican party, the party of Reagan for God’s sake. The longer you stay in the race, the more divided this country will be. But more than that, the more you will hurt the GOP. Your little stunt yesterday? You know, where you thought you could go up against the Messiah and the media? Remember? What? One reporter was there to look at you? One whole reporter. What did you think, that the media would care? HA! They had the Messiah’s 3-pointer to cover. And today? While the Messiah was giving the sermon from the mount, did you really think anyone at that German restaurant cared that you were there? Hell no they didn’t. The chosen one was speaking and all must show reverence and ululate and then genuflect or else the Messiah will leave us. Didn’t you watch any of the Hillary vs. Messiah race?

Speaking of race….. Lance Armstrong? Really?…. Um, he’s like stupid. What ever happened to Chuck Norris. Did you know that Chuck Norris once challenged Lance Armstrong in a “Who has more testicles?” contest. Chuck Norris won by 5.

Did you know that there are no steroids in baseball. Just players Chuck Norris has breathed on.

On his birthday, Chuck Norris randomly selects one lucky child to be thrown into the sun

So where is he?

Oh…. My….God.

Now I understand….

Now I see …..

The Messiah ate Chuck Norris.

I know… ridiculous right? Sadly it isn’t. It’s the truth (well, the messiah didn’t really eat Chuck Norris). Any day now the media will begin to question why McCain is even running. The same media that is now making a mocking of their own coverage over the soon to be anointed one. Hell they are already rejecting his op-ed’s until he can make it more like the Messiah’s.

They know what they’re doing..but that isn’t stopping them from acting like 12 year old school girls backstage at a Jonas Brother concert. McCain should have seen this coming and prepared better for being the sacrificial lamb. Then again, did anyone see all of this blind devoition coming? Sure there was adoration for the Messiah when he was up against the Clinton machine. But did anyone see this… “invasion of the body-snatchers meets Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson-like cult love”?

The scariest part of this is that this fervor is no longer found in fringe journalism or local media. This is coming from the 3 biggies, CBS,NBC,ABC. The granddaddies of all news media have now been assimilated. Resistance is now futile. There will be no more investigative journalism when it comes to the Messiah. No story on earth will make the Granddad’s go against the Messiah. We saw what happened when the administration we have now had free reign from the media. Only now, not only is the media involved, the entire world is backing this man. The world wants him as president. (yes, that is a real website)

We’re fucked……. We are so fucked.

But what if the Messiah doesn’t live up to … Wait…what am I saying, it doesn’t matter if he lives up to anything.. He hasn’t done anything to live up to and look at the mania surrounding him.

I’ve asked so many times…. “What has he done in his political or personal life to show that he deserves this and can be the leader then entire world wants him to be?” I have yet to get an answer. So I have a new question, one that I hope will get an answer and make my life so much easier and ‘flower-y’… Where the hell is the punch bowl? I want to be blinded by a semi-precious smile and a great (when rehearsed 1000’s times) speech giver. I want to be assimilated to save my sanity….. So where in the hell is my blue pill?

Breaking news: The Surge worked.

Actually it’s not so breaking.  The results have been apparent for several months now.  Civilian casualties are down, military casualties are down, and acts of violence in general are down.  Iraq is no paradise, but on the other hand it’s not quite the hell on earth that could have safely described it in 2006.  It’s hard to argue now that it was the wrong strategy, so let’s take a look down memory lane and see who opposed it eh?

Senator John Kerry:  “The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn’t the answer–in fact, it’s a tragic mistake. It won’t end the violence; it won’t provide security; …it won’t turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won’t deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won’t rein in the militias.”

Kerry’s fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, declared the surge, “an immense new mistake.”  Kennedy actively tried to fight sending any more troops.

Senator Christopher Dodd, former Presidential candidate and onetime threesome partner with the previously mentioned Senator Kennedy:  “We don’t need a surge of troops in Iraq–we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years–Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers–has drawn the same conclusion–there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (really, is that his real name?), when asked is she was worried that the gains of the surge might be lost if the troops were removed too hastily, “There haven’t been gains, Wolf…The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.”

Governor Bill Richardson, former Presidential candidate and yapping Vice Presidential wannabe had this to say on the surge:  “The president is wrong. We don’t need anymore troop surges, we need a diplomatic surge. We must get all our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.”

Senator Joseph Biden, yet another former Presidential nominee, and currently running for either Obama’s Vice President or his Secretary of State, whichever will put him in front of the cameras the most, told this to Secretary of State Rice on the surge:  “We heard a plan to escalate the war, not only in Iraq but possibly into Syria and Iran as well…I believe the President’s strategy is not a solution, Secretary Rice, I believe it is a tragic mistake.”

And of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who tried to play the man in her ultimately failed Presidential race against Senator Barack Obama:  “Based on the president’s speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq…The President simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course. The president has not offered a new direction, instead he will continue to take us down the wrong road, only faster.”

There was some Democratic support however.  Senator Lieberman said this in support of the surge:  “it’s just unfair to our troops implementing the surge, to Gen. Petraeus, who helped create this totally different strategy — which is working — to essentially pull the rug out from under them, to take away their reason for fighting before they even have a chance.”

Oh wait, Lieberman is an independent now.  Although he caucuses with the Democrats he is regarded as traitor.  Quite a fall from being the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate 7 plus years ago.  But I don’t want to make it sound like only Democrats opposed the surge.  There was some Republican opposition as well. 

Retiring fence sitter and amateur historian Senator John Warner had this to say, “Young men and women of US forces and coalition forces should not be caught in the crossfire of a civil war prompted by who should have succeeded Mohammed in — what is it? — 650 AD?”

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who teased the country on his decision to think about deciding to consider whether to entertain the notion of running for President, had this to say:  “This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq.”

But right now, the opinions of those who matter most are the two Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.  Come January of next year, no matter who wins, George Bush will be packing his bags and whatever White House towels he can get away with.  As he leaves, his policies leave with him.

McCain’s views on the surge are well known.  In fact, you could argue that he risked his political career on the surge.  But what did fellow contender, Barack Obama have to say?

Before the surge: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.”

After the surge was announced:  “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Of course you will have to look a little bit for Obama’s earlier comments now.  He scrubbed his website to clear out his previous anti surge comments.  Now, guess what?  The surge worked:  “In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda–greatly weakening its effectiveness.”

Hey, anyone can be wrong.  It’s possible that someday I might be wrong about something.  It’s not likely, but never say never.  But it’s stunning when an entire political party is wrong about something so important.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream media was as one on the idea a year and a half ago that the surge couldn’t work and shouldn’t be tried. 

In this election, Barack Obama isn’t running on the experience card.  McCain has that locked up.  He’s running on his judgment. Because he opposed the war on Iraq, he is somehow supposed to have better judgment?  Sean Penn opposed the war too and he thought it was a good idea to marry Madonna.  His supposedly superior judgment had him opposing the surge too.

It wasn’t judgment that had Obama opposing the war,  it was the reflex of the anti-war left.  The same reflex that had him oppose the surge.  I’m still waiting for an example of his good judgment.

Rumors have been swirling that Obama,Dean and Pelosi are trying to negotiate Hillary’s name off of the ballot at the Convention next month. It seems they don’t mind her being on the ballot as long as it’s as a symbolic, roll-call gesture . They want her name on the ballot, they just don’t want placed on the ballot for nomination.

Neither Obama nor Hillary won enough votes to secure the nomination. Obama may have 390 more of them if all the super delegates who pledged to him actually vote for him at the convention. But with his shine getting a little a duller and with 18 million voters voting for Hillary, having her name as a nominee on the ballot and having to listen to all her delegate vote for her would make his ass pucker. All it would take is for her to have prime placement in the speeches and just knock it out of the park. The amount of delegates she has and the problems with his incessant flip-flopping could remind the delegates that she really does have a damn good chance of beating McCain. If she, or Bill were to remind them that her poll numbers against McCain were better than the 46% he and Obama share now…. Who knows what could happen and that’s why he needs to get her of the nominating ballot.

So what can he do about that? Well he can use his political influence to make sure that she is taken off the ballot as a nominee and placed there just as his symbolic 2nd. He’s done this before. Obama only likes to win when he’s uncontested. When Alice Palmer, the former state senator who picked Obama to be her successor back in the mid-90s wanted back on the ticket, he had her kicked off. The problem with Hillary is that there is no legal reason to have her bumped off the ballot. More than that though, if her voters aren’t allowed to vote for her then it’s game on and party unity my ass.

It would be quite embarrassing to Obama if there was a open-air-stadium-like response to Hillary getting on stage and giving a blow-out speech.. This is his shining moment and Hillary can’t be allowed to outshine him once again. But at the same time, Obama wants to project a ‘party-unity’ that just isn’t there. In order to keep that faux-appearance, Hillary just can’t be on the ballot and steal the sunshine from his over-whelming, ever engorging ego. It would ruin his grand plan to take over the world.

Don’t think he has a plan?

Ha-ha Ha-ha Ha-ha

He’s going to give his outdoor stadium speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK “I have a dream” speech while being the 1st nominee to give an outdoor speech since JFK did it in 1960. Yeah, someone is a little full of himself huh?

Here’s the thing. I don’t really give a rat’s ass if it’s embarrassing to Barack Obama. His people screamed like little bitches that Michigan shouldn’t count because he wasn’t on the ballot when they are the ones who took him off. So could you imagine the screaming and race-crying if there was a plan in the mix to get him placed on the ballot as a token 2nd choice? I think Motley Crue, The beatles and Charles Manson had a prediction for that scenario called “Helter Skelter”

This Manson predicted scenario is really just one wrong move from happening as it is. If the press caves, if Obama misteps in such a way that it just can’t be ingored we might have to call Charlie “profit” instead of whack-o-nut. But it would take alot to make the press go against the messiah I mean have you read a story on Obama? The other day there was a story that comics can’t even make fun of him, in that story the writer says

“But there has been little humor about Obama: about his age, his speaking ability, his intelligence, his family, his physique”

Is he Adonis or something? Maybe he’s Jesus? Or maybe he’s the reincarnation of Budda himself .

Jon Stewart tried to make fun of him, but met resistance from the audience. He had to tell them “You know, you’re allowed to laugh at him.”

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm ….Did Jim Jones’ followers ever laugh at him?

Every week I decide I am going to have to swallow my hatred and get on the ball and get the bad stuff out about McCain. Because there really is a lot of stuff out there….. I mean look at this response to a question about his surrogate saying that some health insurance will pay for viagra and not birth control and women would like to have the choice (response at about 5:00).

Could you imaging him being asked a really important question? HA!

Anyway, every week I want to change. I hope that I can finally sit down and do something positive about Barack or if not positive then something about McCain. But every week Barack tweaks my ire with something else and I completely forget about the crazy old man that might just be our next president and I shouldn’t.

This man is just as dangerous and the other one.

How in the hell did we get these 2 “unelectables in a sane year” as our only 2 choices?

Three words

George W Bush.

Yes, that’s right. What kind of liberal rant would this be without putting some kind of blame on Bush? But it’s true. The DNC figured that no matter what and no matter who, they had this election in the bag. The republicans could clone Ronald Reagan and it wouldn’t matter. George Bush fucked this country up so bad and didn’t give one shit about it that anyone running as a (D) would win.

Look say what would want, but even McCain knows this and is doing everything in his power to avoid being linked to Bush.

So the DNC is all it’s wisdom gave us…. No forced upon us.. A liberals wet-dream. No the wet-dream isn’t a woman… No-no… the true liberal wet dream is a good looking black man. Harold Ford jr would have been my choice, but his skeletons have already been vetted out so a no name senator would have do. Hopefully he could get the nomination and election before they were weeded out by the press. But if not, what to do?

Then, a “Karl Rove like” idea was formed.

Anytime anyone dissed this candidate, scream racism.( Which as you know is the liberal kryptonite.) Scream it at every charge and eventually no one will make any more charges and if the do they can be put off as people who just don’t like blacks.

Howard Dean may not have known about Obama deciding to do the open-air stadium rapture until he saw it on the news, but he damn sure knows his liberals.

The problem is liberals don’t just sit silent and fall in with the party-line because the party wants them to. But to silence them forever Dean and his subordinates can only do one more thing to ensure the nomination goes to the exalted one. Get Hillary off the ballot at the convention.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I hope The Denver Group accomplishes it’s goal. Because Hillary may be an old school politician, but she is still better and saner than anyone else out there. The question is though, are more and more people with the power to do something about it paying attention?

I got a call from a polling firm the other day.  I guess even polling is now outsourced to India based on the accent of the person interviewing me.  The loud bustling and noise in the background had me imagining a Hindi boiler room.  When the interviewer asked me if I was going to support the Florida Marriage Amendment, I confess I was caught by surprise.  “Is that up again this year?”  I thought to myself.  “I thought that got kicked out by the courts or something last time?”  Of course to the interviewer I acted like I knew it was on the docket all along, “I will not be supporting that.”  I replied.  I thought about putting on a redneck voice and saying, “Zat so I kin’ marry my sister?”  But I figured my poor interviewer was straining enough under his English language burden as it was.

Of course after I hustled the guy off the line, I had to go look it up. The Florida Marriage Amendment will be coming to a Florida ballot near you this fall.  Look for it.  This seemed like a sleeper amendment to me.  I’m not sure if it would have kicked up much of a ruckus if it hadn’t been for California’s Supreme Court’s decision in May to overturn California’s gay marriage ban.  However, as much as conservatives deride those liberal courts, they do have their uses. 

In 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered that their state constitution, ratified in 1780, actually authorized gay marriage.  Who knew those puritans meant that?  Those wacky Adams brothers… 

The results, besides the increased business for wedding planners and a state wide shortage of ice swans, was the mobilization of social conservatives  across the country who feared their State could be next on the gay marriage hit list.  This lead to a renewed surge in political activism among social conservatives nationwide, who suddenly viewed the make up of the US Supreme Court in jeopardy if Kerry won the election.  This even had an effect on the black vote in certain key states.  George Bush, whose popularity among African-Americans was only slightly higher than police water hoses and sweaty southern sheriffs, suddenly had black ministers stumping for him in the pulpit.  In Ohio, the key state in the 2004 election, this lead to a surge from a normal 9% of black Republican support to an astounding (for Republicans that is) 16%.   

And….four more years.

The funny thing is, Kerry’s and Bush’s position on gay marriage was identical.  They both supported civil unions, but didn’t support gay “marriage.”  In fact all of the major presidential candidate’s position on gay marriage in 2004 and 2008 has been virtually the same: Yes to civil unions, no to marriage. In an era known for its remarkable divisiveness on so many political and social issues, this is an issue for which there is remarkable consensus.  Polling has shown that nationwide, 55% of the U.S. population supported the idea of gay civil unions. The public’s comfort with the idea of civil unions has increased year after year and I expect the trajectory to continue.  The only thing that could put a stop stick in this increased acceptance is …

…liberal courts.

Given the success at letting the courts decide issues that should be decided through the electoral process (see abortion), one can hardly be surprised at the outcome.  Social conservatives mobilized, gay activists mobilized and a divisive issue becomes even more divisive. 

Currently, this is good news for Republicans.  While polling seems to support civil unions, if the word marriage is thrown in, the support drops off precipitously. If the issue was strictly within the normal electoral process, it really wouldn’t be much of an advantage to Republicans. But as an issue that is being decided in the courts in response to lawsuits, rather than the normal electoral process, who is on the court matters as much as who is in office.  The electoral process is following, rather than leading the issue.

And this is where the California’s court decision comes in.   Between the wedding cake and matching tuxedo rentals, on the November ballot will be another issue besides Obama vs. McCain; Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage.  Even in a pretty liberal state like California, gay marriage is not a sure bet.  In 2000, California votes approved by more than 61% Proposition 22, which amended California statutes to limit marriage between a man and a woman.  Prop 22 is actually what was challenged by the City of San Francisco and others.  The issue, In Re Marriage Cases, overturned the part of the State statute that was amended by Prop 22, freeing the way for gay marriage in California.

Proposition 8 has text virtually identical to Proposition 22:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

The difference is that Prop 22 amended the State statutes.  Prop 8 amends the State Constitution. 

Cases like this increase the urgency of the issue to be handled by constitutional amendment, rather than just trusting state laws, which generally define who is and isn’t eligible for marriage.  If Massachusetts’s 18th Century constitution can be reinterpreted by sympathetic judges to decree that the puritan fathers always intended for dudes to marry each other, how long before activist judges on the nations Supreme Court decree the same thing?

“Yep, if you look right here in the preamble, it’s just barely visible, but it’s obvious what the founders meant,

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect GAY union…

It’s all right there, in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution.  Not in words so much….

Currently three States will have ballot initiatives this year to ban gay marriage.  Of the three, election turnout in Florida could make the difference on whether the State goes with Obama or McCain.  What, oh what, could bring social conservatives to the voting booth this year? 

Republicans almost don’t deserve the luck they’ve had.  In a year that should be an easy give me to the Democrats, Republicans nominated the one candidate who might possibly appeal to independents and renegade Democrats.  True, it seemed as if the cost would be social conservatives sitting home this November, but then a wonderful (to Republicans) thing happened:  The California Supreme Court reminded social conservatives that godless gay secularists were still out there, ready to overturn God’s law in favor of Satan’s.

It would be a strange irony if liberal court decisions helped defeat a liberal Presidential nominee this year.  But it’s happened before.  In fact, it happened last Presidential election.

And what about me?  Why would I oppose the Florida Marriage Amendment when it could help elect a candidate I prefer?

The way the amendment was written the intention is not just to ban gay marriage, but civil unions as well.  In that regard, I am with the majority of Americans and our major Presidential candidates in favoring civil unions.

But I tip my hat to the Florida Marriage Amendment, and the California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts.

Thanks guys!

Barack Obama made a “patriotism” speech last Monday.  Every once in a while, if Obama feels he is being threatened on a particular issue, he does a speech on it, and declares the issue closed.  For a normal candidate, that would bring up more questions and widen the issue, but not with Obama.  With a lickspittle media to back him up, he seems to be able to have the definitive word on an issue.  Like his infamous race speech, given to try to get out from under widening questions about his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama mentioned it to end it.  The speech, in which Obamaphile first, journalist second, Chris Matthews, declared “Worthy of Abraham Lincoln” and “the best speech ever given on race in this country,” did end the issue until Jeremiah Wright himself forced it back on the front page, pulling kicking and screaming main stream media with him.  Of course if Obama himself wants to use race, such as in his more recent “Did I mention he’s black?” speech, he is free to bring it up and start tossing race bombs at any time.

But the issue Obama feels threatened by now is patriotism.  I can hardly think of a time when that has been an issue in Presidential politics, but here we are.  I can’t imagine McCain giving a defensive speech counseling others not to question his patriotism.  McCain probably in his wildest dreams wouldn’t imagine who would be dumb enough to attack him on his patriotism. 

But Obama’s problems with the issue are his own making.  Last year, when asked why he didn’t wear the flag pin, he could have answered in a number of ways that would have made the issue as throw away as the question should have been. 

“Sometimes I just forget to put it on.”

“Michelle dresses me, and she hates America.”

“I don’t care for the bling.”

Any of those answers would have been better to how he really answered:

“The truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security…”

“I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

Gee, I never got the memo.   Flag pin equals the Iraq war?  I have not been counting flag pins, but I suspect there were plenty of people who opposed the war but still managed to wear flag pins.  It’s a tribute to Obama’s inexperience that he managed to take what is in essence a silly issue, and stumble on it with a defense that opens up a whole host of symbolic, but deadly issues for anyone running for political office anywhere other than Berkeley.  If Obama thinks the flag pin represents support of the Iraqi War, what does a flag sticker on a car mean?  Support for invasion of Pakistan?  Actually we ought to check Obama’s car for that.  It’s just a guess, but I suspect that there is no flag pole at the sprawling Chicago Obama Manor.

Senator Obama laid down the law with this line, “I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.”  Luckily Obama supporter Wesley Clark’s bumbling attack on McCain’s military record was made the day before Obama’s speech.  Clark’s attack so backfired that I suspect the whole patriotism speech had probably been sitting on a shelf waiting for a more appropriate time until Clark forced Obama’s hand.

He was going to have to give the patriotism speech eventually though.  Not to cover for Wesley Clark, who may have blown his VP chances, but to protect someone a little closer to home.  Michelle Obama clearly lacks her husband’s political skills, as well as lawyer’s penchant for parsing words so precisely that you have to go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure you really understand what he is trying to say.  Although Michelle is a lawyer too, she is by no means a subtle one, describing the country as “just downright mean.” But my favorite Michelle tag line is this, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country …” 

I’m sure the Obama’s were shocked that phrase kicked up quite a controversy.  What would there to be proud of in this country until Barack Obama decided to run for President?  Damage control to the rescue.  Politics must seem so easy for a candidate who has all of the main stream media at his beck and call.  No gaffe or misstatement is so big that it can’t be either ignored or explained away.  And that’s how we got Michelle on The View. 

Not being a regular View watcher, I have no idea how much of this dullard housewives kaffee klatch is scripted, but the part where English Professor Whoopi Goldberg brings up Michelle’s quote in order to clear things up seems right out of script book.  Professor Goldberg explained that Michelle’s use of the word “really” modified her statement to mean that the first part of her phrase didn’t really exist.  For example, this is what Michelle Obama said:

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

However using the special Whoopi rules it really means:

“——————————, I’m really proud of my country.”

Not having Whoopi’s knowledge of English grammar, I felt stupid and ignorant for not understanding what Michelle Obama was really trying to say.  I guess I must be an uneducated bitter American.  I decided to give it a try to see if I could use the Whoopi “really” sentence construction in real life situations.

Me:  You know, for the first time in our marriage, I really love you.

Wife:  What???

Me: You know what I mean. I really love you for the first time in our marriage.

My wife has a temper that can go from zero to eighty in about three seconds flat.  Three seconds was about how long it took to try explain to my wife that she was bitter and angry for not understanding what Michelle and I was trying to say.

Me:  I’m trying to tell you that I really love you; for the first time in our marriage!  Can’t you see that?

Anyway, she didn’t see that.  So because of my wife’s ignorance of the English language, I have about 14 more days on the couch before I can come back to the bedroom.  I only hope that the American people have a better understanding of English than my wife does.

Obama fills sandbags in Illinois town threatened by floods

QUINCY, Ill. (AP) — Barack Obama has stopped by the Mississippi River city of Quincy in his home state of Illinois where he used a shovel to fill sandbags as a precaution against the rising river.

The Democratic presidential nominee-apparent says his thoughts are with the people of Iowa, where flooding has chased thousands from their homes.

Obama said since he’s been in public office he has not seen “this kind of devastation.”
Obama pledged to push the federal and state governments to provide aid to the stricken areas

There was just so much wrong with this ‘ticker’ from cnn.com that I didn’t know where to start. Maybe I should have address those things and not clicked on the video.

Oops….. …

Are you kidding me? He’s out there filling sandbags? In a baby blue shirt? A clean baby blue shirt? Only Barrack Obama could do hard-labor and still look like an top-hat wearing elitist.

I can’t help but question his motives and his advisers. Is he out there because he really cares? If so that’s wonderful, but show me something in his past comparable so that I can believe him. Show me where he shoveled snow off an elderly lady’s porch or changed a blind man’s tire or even tied a toddlers shoe. Some kind of manual labor.

Here’s another thing I always notice with him. He can’t speak off the cuff. Unless it’s a canned answer or a overly used speech he stumbles and mumble and ‘umm-err-uhhh’ constantly. I noticed this during his debates with HRC. He isn’t Mr. Smooth Rap star unless his words have been practiced. Now there isn’t anything wrong with this. But when everyone swoons over how rhythmic and cadenced you are then you better be able to speak like that all the time. That’s what was so impressive about Bill Clinton, he could give a state of the union speech off the top of his head. When the teleprompter put up the wrong speech, he was forced to ad lib and noone knew it until later because he didn’t miss a beat. This is not a skill Barrack has. It’s not a skill many people have. But when a person is credited with being able to make women drop their panties when they speak, they should be able to speak when there are no notes or teleprompters in front of them.

But back to the ‘sand-bagging’….. if you saw the video he catches himself when he says “I haven’t seen this kind of devastation…. “ and says “Since I’ve been in public office, I haven’t seen this kind of devastation”.. well since he’s only been in public office for a minute that’s to be expected. But here is something that McCain can go after him on. I think Obama’s adviser told him to do this photo-op for a couple of reasons.

-One because he needs the votes and it’s a good way to get them.

-Two because it dispels the notion that he’s an elitist. Would and elite ivy-league boy shovel dirt or do manual labor? Ummm, yeah

-Three, because it shows him being youthful and vigorous and able to handle any physical job, whereas the old and decrepit McCain wouldn’t be able to walk through the dirt much less pick up a shovel.

And it’s the 3rd option that McCain can’t counter, but after Obama’s words about his time in ‘public office’, he‘s got something to build on. McCain can go out and just shake the hands of people affected by this flood. He doesn’t need to ’sand-bag’ he’s got experience on his side. He can tell them that he remembers what was like after Noah’s flood….. HA!… just kidding! But no, he can go out there and talk about how he’s spoken with people after Katrina, after the massive earthquake in the late 80’s…uh, that’s 1980’s, after the hurricanes in Punta Gorda and many other disasters that he has witnessed during his time in ‘public office’…He can offer sympathy and hope because he’s seen it. Whereas Barrack comes off as a mama’s boy getting his hands dirty for the 1st time.

Lastly and I really hate to even mention this. But is a photo-op of a black man, working a shovel, surrounded by a bunch of white men who are just standing there watching him….. Really a good image? Down in Dixie they’ll get a chuckle but will that give him their votes?

Anyway, if tomorrow we see Michelle standing around in a flowered apron handing out lemonade to all the ‘white folk’, I think I’d start to take a real good look at BHO’s advisers and see if maybe they aren’t closet HRC supporters or Karl Rove interns .