In the last two days I ‘ve seen like fifteen news articles pointing out that John McCain campaign aides describe Sarah Palin as rogue and that she is veering from the talking points. Uh, guys, you promoted her as a maverick. Now she’s being one. What’s the problem?

This is the problem with PR guys running political campaigns. Voters want to know the candidates. They can’t get to know the candidates if they hide behind your press releases and talking points. They then become nothing more than walking billboards. That’s not real personal and it’s not real clever. The fact that the McCain campaign billed these two faux “mavericks” as maverick was a big surprise to begin with. Now one of them acts like a maverick and the party wants to act like she’s throwing the election.

The fact is, McCain and Palin are going to lose. I think they know it. I think they’ve given up. And now they are looking for someone to blame. They will likely blame each other. Or the McCain aides will blame Palin and Palin will blame the campaign aides. Either way, the Party loses. It’ll serve them right.

You can’t put two mavericks on the same ticket. If you do, one of them is going to bust out and outshine the other. Like Patton against his rivals during WWII. Sure enough, one of them did.

I’ve been hoping throughout this election cycle that John McCain would break out and say what he’s really wanting to be saying so that I could have a reason to vote for him. Instead, he’s been a wuss and his running mate, the female moose hunter from Alaska, is the one who broke out. Only it wasn’t her place to do so. She should have stayed in her position and supported her man. That’s what she was there for. Now she will go down in history as the one who drove the steak into the heart of the McCain campaign. Serves ‘em all right. Mavericks my ass.

That guy who writes Things That Just Piss Me Off really pisses me off sometimes. But today he’s got me pissing happy as a Russian racehorse. He invoked the ‘Rush Limbaugh is a racist’ card.

Rush Limbaugh is the slime bucket of the GOP. He and Sean Hannity. Colin Powell didn’t rise as far in the ranks of the military as he did by showing racist favoritism. The U.S. military has come as close to eliminating racism as any institution in the modern world. Colin Powell’s professionalism and dedication to his country are untouched and unmatched by few in the ranks of either major party. If he chose to endorse Barack Obama, I can assure you it wasn’t because of race.

Colin Powell was used by the rightwing nutjobs who now hold public office - primarily George W. Bush, his sidekick Dick “Mutley” Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld - to sell their lies to the UN and the American people. That alone is enough to make any reasonable and self-respecting Republican of any race to switch parties no matter who the running mate is. Colin Powell is just one person in a long line of Republicans to have abandoned their party and endorse Barack Obama. I suppose all those white Republicans did so because Barack is black as well, right?

Rush Limbaugh has as much sense as pharmaceutical abuse. And the effect he has on the American system of politics is about the same. No wonder he pisses people off.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin faced off with Delaware Senator Joe Biden last night. Going into the debate, I knew very little of Sarah Palin and more than I needed to know about Joe Biden. I’ve never been a big fan of his and I’ve always believed that “experience” in national politics was a hindrance, not a help. Sarah Palin changed my mind.

Her “folksy” approach to debate was a huge turn off. She didn’t win my heart because she couldn’t win my mind. It isn’t even a matter of failure. It’s really a matter of indequacy. She isn’t fit for the position.

I was leaning in that direction before the debate, but I wanted to see how she handled herself against a strong debater like Biden. I was impressed that she did so well. But when she said that she agreed with Dick Cheney about the nature of the office of vice president, that was enough for me to decide that we don’t need a gunslinging social folk artist a lockstep away from the most powerful position in the world. Everyone would lose.

As a reminder, Dick Cheney is on the record as saying the vice president’s position is a part of the Legislative branch of government, not the Executive. As Biden so eloquently corrected him, that’s one of the most ludicrous assertions ever made in U.S. politics. His position in the Senate is simply to break tie votes, not to compose legislation or impose his will. He is first and foremost a back up to the president. Since Sarah Palin has the same view as Cheney then we will likely see a repeat of the types of abuses that Dick Cheney has been guilty of for the past eight years.

While I don’t share the bigoted views of Sam Harris regarding religion - I am, after all, a Christian who regularly attends a traditionally orthodox denomination - I do believe that Sarah Palin’s views on God, sexuality, and a number of other things is a hindrance to her ability to serve as vice president. And people who claim that they will vote for Palin because they can “relate to her” should have their license to vote revoked.

Well, now that I’ve gone over the line, let me say that I don’t really believe that taking people’s right to vote away is the answer. But I am fearful that America is being run by unnuanced thinking, primarily because of the widespread belief that politicians are there to serve the whims of the populace. There is no idea so un-Republican and destructive as the notion that the majority should rule in every situation. But that is a digression.

Palin’s Pentecostal parochialism positions the federal government to limit the freedoms of Americans who have, according to traditional Republican philosophies of governance, a right to pursue happiness according to the dictates of their own values.

Her cute, schoolgirl smile does not win me over. I am not interested in a friendly servant with a beauty pageant disposition. I am interested in a knowledgeable and effective statesman who will act in accordance with the law while carrying out his official duties. I do not like Biden’s politics and I disagree with many more of his principles than I do with Palin’s. Still, I can’t help but see Palin as a hockey mom and hockey moms may make great mayors of small towns in Alaska, but you can’t take a crash course in international politics and expect that you’ll affect relations with foreign leaders for the positive because you know how to cheer from the sidelines.

Sarah Palin’s oft-spoken assertions that she is a mother and working-class wife who can relate to the everyday challenges of American families is smarmy and downright silly. She isn’t running for president of the PTA. She is asking people to let her take on a position that will require her to consider many things that the people she can relate to so easily cannot understand and will never themselves have the opportunity to consider, and she must be able to think about those policy decisions using thinking skills that are based on logic, fact-checking, and analyzing complex details. Rather than demonstrate that she has those skills, she is busy conjuring “betchas”, “hecks”, and “gee golly gee-whiskers”, as if having the knack for speaking in Fargo-like colloquialisms is the highest qualification for the office.

Sarah Palin is a cheerleader. Her mentality is so close to the mind of Bush’s, the president with the lowest approval rating in history, that for anyone to consider her a serious candidate is more than a joke. The Bush-Cheney presidency has arrogated itself to starting an unjust war in Iraq that requires the poor and middle class to pay for with their lives and pocketbooks while the wealthiest members of our society profit. John McCain and Sarah Palin want to continue those policies. I would gladly suffer through four years of liberal social policy than to have to live one more day with the disastrous, cynical, and philosophically dangerous illusions of the neoconservative cabal represented by the likes of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin.

What kind of vice president do we need? We need one who understands the Constitution from a historical perspective, not an ideologically narrow one. We need a VP who is in touch with reality and can distance herself from her hockey mom past. Anyone elected to the vice president’s position should have a background in making difficult decisions and looking at cold, hard facts. Disagree with his politics, but recognize that Joe Biden’s experience in the Senate is far more valuable than Sarah Palin’s on Alaska’s hunting grounds. In this case, experience counts.

The republican machine is grinding on all cylinders to try and get people to forget that the republicans have had the white house for the last 8 years with 6 of those years also having a republican majority in the house and senate.

They want you to forget all of that and believe that John McCain who was part of that regime and who voted with george Bush 95% of the time is the right person to fix the mess the republicans have gotten this country into.

Now they even have the NRA willing to lie for them;

NRA Targets Obama
September 22, 2008
It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.
Summary
A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama’s position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama’s “10 Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment” is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms” and “will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.”

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama’s stated position as “rhetoric” and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret “plan.” Said an NRA spokesman: “We believe our facts.”

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn’t make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama’s record to come up with a bogus “plan.”

So basically, no matter what Obama actually says, they are going to twist it and tryu to convince people he said something different. That is called bearing false witness for those who read the bible. This is the party christians are supposed to support?

The National Review Online offers a suggestion to John McCain and Republican operatives. They should have targeted Sarah Palin’s media blitz toward talk radio and the blogosphere, where the base hangs out. Good suggestion, only now it’s too late.

The thinking is this: The broader media will give Sarah Palin a wider reach in audience. That’s the Republican thinking. The National Review believes that’s more of a hindrance than a help since her message doesn’t exactly sit with voters who don’t shoot moose, wear pistols to hockey games, and wear matching lipstick with her pet pig. I think The National Review has a point. Here’s the Republican takeaway - next time.

Ordinarily, the GOP doesn’t need pointers running a smooth campaign. Their plan has been the same since the Nixon Parade. Donald Henry Segretti was the man behind the re-elect Nixon campaign and was notorious for his slash-and-burn tactics, which worked. He was a master and Karl Rove was his eager protege.

Karl Rove’s drive to make G.W. Bush a “war president” largely succeeded. But the back draft has been a huge decline in Bush’s popularity. That hasn’t stopped John McCain’s campaign managers from using the same dirty tactics. This time they won’t work as a better organized Democratic Party political machine is in place to elect someone who actually has some electability. If the McCain political machine had capitalized on Palin’s strength by positioning her in friendly territory to discuss her hot topics with her base then the mainstream media would be forced to use the soundbites from those interviews, giving Palin a larger appeal to a broader audience. As it is, the broader audience will see her as she really is and not how the GOP wants her to be seen. The lesson to learn for the GOP is to take this suggestion into the next election cycle. Politics is about to get dirtier.

The news of the day is the economy. The big news of the day is the economy. The biggest news of the past three days has been the wrangling over the economy. President Bush wants to bail out the rich and save them from financial disaster. Democratic members of the Congress say eat the rich. Ben Bernanke, the Fed Chairman, is saying bailout or recession.

On other matters of the economy it seems that George W. Bush and John McCain are the only two people left in the country who believe the economy is sound.

Really, whether it’s bailout, inflation and recession, unemployment, or other economic indicators, no matter how you measure it, things are a little sour right now. That doesn’t look well for Republican presidential candidate John McCain. But all the media can do is to point out that both sides disagree on a solution to the economic woes. Media companies just pander to one side or the other while arguing that the side they disagree with are being stubborn and instead of anyone offering a viable solution everyone wants to point out that the opposition is being stubborn and obstinate. Truth is, they’re all being stubborn and obstinate.

But, there’s no doubt that the economy is in the state that it’s in today because of the policies of the past eight years. Why should anyone trust John McCain and his PR team at Fox News?

Finally, we’ve got an evangelical public figure with as much brains as balls. Frank Schaeffer is on the road calling Sarah Palin a “lipstick fascist” and makes some very strong arguments that the Republican Party is using the same tactics that the Nazi Party used in Germany to usher Hitler and the Third Reich into power. Is he being too harsh?

I don’t think he is. While I think there are still sufficient checks and balances in the system (for the time being) to prevent an all-out fascist takeover, I do believe that we’ve been on the slow track to fascism for the better part of a century. It’s only been recently, just in the last 20 years, that a major political party has been so brazen as to blatantly advocate fascist policies in America. The Bush Administration has taken that brazenness to a new level. Frank Schaeffer is absolutely correct that if McCain and Palin win then the next four years will see America slide further and deeper into labor camps.

I’ve heard it all now. While reading a popular marketing blog that I frequently read, the subject turned to politics. One person decided to name 13 reasons Obama won’t win the upcoming election. All of them were based on illogical thought processes that leaves me wondering just where people get their ideas from. Refutations aren’t even necessary as some of these are just plain silly, but here they are and my responses:

1) Obama is not black enough for black voters. Also, many African Americans don’t vote, so he’ll miss this vote even if they prefer him over McCain.

Seriously, do you think that the 11% of African-Americans in our society are so dense and stupid that they will refuse to vote, or worse, vote for a rich white guy because the Democratic candidate isn’t “black enough?” Most African-Americans are Democrats and they will not vote for a rich, white Republican. This is so out of touch with reality that I can’t imagine anyone even thinking it. It is highly likely that more black people will vote in this election than in any previous one. Duh!

2) Obama is not white, or white enough for most white voters. Most (not all) white men will feel uncomfortable voting for someone who is not of their race.

Actually, most white men are ideological and those who are conservative-leaning would sooner vote for a black conservative (if they could find one they like) than a white liberal who will raise their taxes. White liberal male voters will still vote for the candidate who is most liberal and most representative of their world view despite his skin color. Economics has a lot more influence on most voters than race.

3) H. Clinton supports will most likely do one of two things: a) vote for McCain, or b) not vote at all. There goes those people. The democratic party has severe problems uniting–they tend to bicker back and forth. On the other hand, the republican party, for the most part, is united and decisive.

It’s possible that some Hillary Clinton supporters will vote for McCain. It’s also possible than some will not vote at all. But 18 million people? Come on! There is no way that 18 million committed Democrats are going to vote for McCain or stay away from the polls altogether. The vast majority of Hillary’s supporters are likely Yellow Dog Democrats. They’ll vote for Obama.

4) The vast majority of right wing Christians and evangelicals will not vote for Obama, most likely based on three items: a) he continues to support and uphold the Roe vs. Wade decision, and doesn’t believe that abortion should be banned completely, b) he has Muslim roots, whether he has ever researched or practiced any Islamism or not, and c) he was a bonefied member under a radical black preacher.

Too general a statement to back up. Research shows that younger evangelicals care less about single-issue voting (even if it’s Roe v. Wade) than about the big picture. The last guy they supported started an unjust war. That’s as bad as Roe v. Wade and they are angry at Bush and the Republicans for doing it. I think this election will see a huge evangelical split like never before.

5) Obama is considered inexperienced without a doubt. And although a country is run by several individuals, cabinet members, advisors, etc., these influences and factors will not be considered when determining whether he is suitable to run a country by the people who are ACTUALLY voting.

True, most voters care about experience, but at the end of the day what they really care about is what they expect their leaders to do. Obama has other characteristics that are hitting a nerve with many voters. Experience is over rated.

6) Most people do not like change, even if it may be for the better. When things are the same people feel they can predict outcomes and know what to expect. What’s another four or eight years of rolling with the status quo? Most people will not want change because there is no guarantee that things will be better.

Ludicrous. Many elections are based on change. Nixon was elected based on promises of change. Carter was elected because he said he’d never lie (and he kept his promise). Reagan was elected because voters saw Carter as too weak. Clinton was elected based on change. Bush the warmonger was elected based on change. Obama will win based on change. It’s the single most motivating factor in winning elections.

7) Now, this is a strange reason not to vote for Obama, but I’ve heard it from more than one person. There is a fear that Obama will be assassinated and that will cause great upheaval for the country, worse than anything of which Bush could have ever been accused.

This one just makes me laugh. You’re telling me that millions of Americans will vote for John McCain because they don’t want the black guy to be assassinated? Uhhm, what about racism again?

The overwhelmingly majority of those who have great wealth will definitely not vote for Obama because he has plans to tax them heavily. These people with wealth can often be very influential and will encourage those connected with them not to vote for him.

According to this logic, no Democrat would ever win. But there are many wealthy Democrats and some of them actually believe that higher taxes are a necessary component to good government.

9) The U.S. is generally a country that is very concerned about appearances and materialism. Obama has an uncommon name that doesn’t sit well with most people. Obama doesn’t look like the average American to many Americans. A person who doesn’t consistenly wear a flag on their lapel and is in a government position cannot truly represent nationalistic pride according to thousands of Americans. Also, there is question and doubt if Obama was even born on American soil.

Very general statement. Because Obama has an “uncommon” name, the millions of U.S. citizens living in a materialistic culture will vote for the rich white guy? Weird; just plain weird logic.

10) People will not vote for Obama because to the vast majority of Americans there is little worth in education beyond high school and/or at most a bachelors degree. Obama is over-educated for most individuals to really appreciate. Just mentioning his Harvard education leaves many people with the impression that he is a condescending snob.

This one is the funniest joke of all. Some of the best presidents, or at least the most beloved, were educated men. Woodrow Wilson is the most educated president in history and he is well loved by historians and the general population today. Abraham Lincoln had a law degree. John F. Kennedy had a law degree. Nixon had a law degree. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar with a law degree. And voters won’t vote for Obama because he is Harvard educated? George W. Bush went to Yale. Silly. Just plain silly.

11) The votes that Obama may be hoping to get through minority groups won’t come through. Most ‘blue collar’ workers could care less about the internet. Many poor people have no access to the internet (except through public libraries) and have little interest in looking up anything in regard to the presidential election as they try to scrape by to survive. Obama supporters are connected through the Internet giving a false impression that there is such strength out there. Many of these Internetters may complain and write excellent articles, but when it comes time to push the button, oops, they are recovering from their hangover or “whatever dude”. What Americans see are ads from McCain that appeal to emotions, and emotions cut quicker than any rational appeal to the head for many individuals.

Classism. Poor people don’t care about the Internet? Hmmm. Even if that were true, what does it have to do with the election? Obama is also running TV ads. Poor people watch TV, don’t they? The nuttiness continues.

12) And how about all the gun owners out there? Most will certainly not a cast a vote for Obama. This country is guns galore, are you kidding me?

So gun owners won’t vote for a Harvard-educated black man with Islamist roots? Because millions of people own guns, no one will vote for Obama? OK, maybe there will be some blue-collar, gun-toting white guys run to the polls on election day to cast a vote for John McCain. Many Democrats own guns and hunt deer. They’ll vote for Obama.

13) And the last reason that thousands, millions of people will not vote for Obama is that he has no personal military experience. The majority of the men and women love their careers in the military and will feel threatened if their jobs may be cut. Thousands of military soldiers are proud to serve in the armed forces and want to sacrifice their life or health if need be to save the country for which they have great pride. Obama can’t represent these people.

Really? So Americans only want military leaders? Let’s see, how many past presidents can we count with no military experience (source)? John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. John Quincy Adams. Martin Van Buren. Grover Cleveland. William Howard Taft. Woodrow Wilson. Warren Harding. Calvin Coolidge. Herbert Hoover. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Bill Clinton. And Barack Obama.

People should not predict election outcomes based on their hopes and dreams. I don’t care who wins the election as long as it’s not John McCain. But these points I’ve made are not based on my hopes. They’re based on reality. People aren’t going to stay home on election day because Obama is an over-educated black guy with a Muslim father. This will be one of the most important elections in recent history. More important than the last two elections. Maybe McCain will win. If so, it will be because he took the electoral college, not because Americans vote like eighth graders.

If you’ve been reading the news much in the last couple of days then you’ve likely heard that the Democratic Party is having a little “friction” regarding the Clintons’ role in the upcoming party convention. Hey, what’s the news without a little friction, right?

Well, according to presidential hopeful Barack Obama, that friction is just plain fiction. And if he has anything to do with it, he’s going to ease the friction, and the fiction, by going to Hawaii.

Good plan. This man has an entirely different temperament than our current commander-in-chief, who seems to be as adept at his own brand of fiction as anyone in media circles. Is Obama right? Are the media creating fiction or is there real friction in the Democratic Party?

Affirmative action. Saying it is enough to send a self-respecting conservative into a frothing frenzy. Blood boils. Necks turn red (if they’re not already). Steams shoots from the ears (and sometimes from the eyes). And I’ve even witnessed a few synaptic implosions, which tends to cure mild brain damage.

But just what the hell is an “affirmative action president”?

According to Conservapedia, an affirmative action president is one that is elected primarily because of his race.

The phrase was coined, evidently, by right wingnut Michael Savage, who reportedly said that America’s not ready for an affirmative action president. Maybe there’s a point there, somewhere, but would any of these conservapricks like to explain how we were ready for a hostile takeover by the knuckle dragging segment now known as Bush’s Cabal (OK, I made that up; I justed wanted to coin a phrase too)?

Conservapedia’s definition aside, I’m not sure that Barack Obama, if he is elected, would be elected on race alone. A goodly number of voters cast votes against someone rather than for someone, which means what? They’d be voting against McCain because he’s white? Not likely. I won’t vote for McCain, even if I don’t vote for Obama. I won’t vote for him because he doesn’t represent my values and because I think he’s given up on his own values. He’s become a Neo-con shill, which is what I think he believes will get him elected. If it does then it will only prove that Liberty has lost and Alexander Hamilton got the last laugh.

Honestly, Conservapedia’s rhetoric is just a blow-hard’s gust of tonsil snot. If Obama wins, it will likely be because the Republican Party isn’t worth the effort it will take to drain the dirty bath water.