LA Times Media Commentator Says Fairness Doctrine Paranoia Is Baseless; Millions of Conservatives Breathe a Sigh of Relief

Rainey Demonstrates His Lack of Ability to Properly Use Search Engines

The "Fairness Doctrine" issue - the possible re-imposition of political balance requirements for radio broadcasters - is going to be a hot one for the next year.  Many eyes are trained on President-elect Obama with concerns about how far left his agenda will be, and the "Fairness Doctrine" is near the top of many conservative watch lists.   According to James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times, conservatives don't need to worry our pretty little heads about it one bit.

The sub-headline of the story reads:

Impose a mandate on broadcasters to balance their political views? That would be onerous indeed. But memo to Rush: Nobody's asking for that.

I know Rainey didn't write the headline of the sub-head.  Still, any readers not managing to make it past the bold print take away the notion that conservative talk radio hosts across the country are held in the grip of paranoid delusion.  But, in the commentary body, Rainey cites two senators - Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) - as having publicly called for the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to be reapplied. 

Of all people that I would ever expect to be referred to as "nobody", Chuck Schumer would be eternally absent from that list.

Rainey's contention, though, seems to be that the voices of two influential senators do not constitute the political will necessary to change the way the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) currently regulates broadcasters.  In support of his hypothesis that a lack of enthusiasm is present for such action, he offers the following:

If the left wing is gearing up for such a push, I had trouble detecting it. A search of the liberal Daily Kos website turned up almost no mentions of the Fairness Doctrine.

Mr. Rainey, you must always remember to turn the detection device on before using it.

Mr. Rainey should educate himself in two areas: how politics works in America and a knowledge of search engines. 

I donned my wet suit and went to Daily Kos for myself and found that Mr. Rainey is partially correct.  When I searched for the terms "fairness" and "doctrine" in "stories" - commentaries and postings by Daily Kos staff writers and contributors - I only find two results within the last two weeks.  This, however, is where the understanding of American politics comes in.  Movements always gain strength from vocal activists, sometimes known as people.  These are the kind of folks who hop on the computer and comment on blogs like the Daily Kos, they even write letters and make phone calls to elected officials.

So what happens when we search through "comments"?  During the past 2 weeks, those same search terms found 511 results.  When we search through "stories and diaries" - diaries are the personal blogs kept by Daily Kos users - we get 56 results.  Reminder: That's just in the past two weeks.  One one liberal web site.

When Mr. Rainey wrote of finding "almost no mentions" of the "Fairness Doctrine", I would have given him a bit of leeway to accept four, five, maybe even fifteen results, but 511?  That's a margin of error even exit pollsters wouldn't be comfortable with.

Furthermore, if Mr. Rainey actually did the work read the content of posts, he would have learned that there are examples of people who are actively advocating the return of the anti-free speech "Fairness Doctrine".

'shpilk' is one Daily Kos user who keeps a blog on the site.  In a diary post with the tag "Fairness Doctrine" attached - for context - they wrote on November 7:

We've got to find the Achilles Heel of the newspapers and local TV and radio stations that refuse to play fair, that give favorable borrowing terms to Republicans like they did with Reichert a few scant weeks before the election.

Another offering comes from 'lfurman97', who wrote on November 8th:

"Now the work begins. The first order of business will be to re-instate the "Fairness Doctrine" and reverse the policies that have proven so disastrous..."

Another Kos user, 'Troubadour', comments as follows to explain how President-elect Obama could begin moving the "Fairness Doctrine" into place.  (Be careful, it's Daily Kos so the language gets a little rough.  Cover the eyes of small children and refrain from reading aloud.)

Obama would give a speech on it.

He would explain that the airwaves belong to YOU, the American people - they are not the private property of the corporations to whom YOU the people grant conditional licenses to operate for the public good.  He could even quote directly from the text of those licenses, and perhaps Edward R. Murrow if he's feeling saucy.  And the wingnuts would be left with what?  Their usual - their dicks in their hands.

Naturally he would consult with legal experts first and have built up a substantial base of support for it, but that would just be icing on the cake.  Obama speeches are irresistible when they confront some deep truth and seek to exercise leadership.  My only advice to him: Keep making speeches from a standing position - don't do the desk thing.

This comment came after this one by 'methinsaw':

Although I think the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea, the wing-nuts will go crazy saying their first amendment rights are being taken away by the liberals.  That would be a salient argument for them to use to attract voters that might not understand the issue very well.

These are not the only citations I could find on the mother ship of all liberal chatter, I just don't have time to keep cutting, pasting and hyperlinking for the remainder of the day.  There are more liberal web sites, and plenty of blogs that are operated independent of a parent site.  Perform a Google blog search for yourself and get back to me with what you find.

Before Mr. Rainey dismissed conservative impulses to protect the first amendment something akin to staying mad at your wife because you dreamt she cheated on you, he should have taken the time to really acknowledge that there are people on the left who wish to silence conservative media voices.  Just saying it isn't so won't make the threat go away.

###

Technorati Tags: Daily Kos,James Rainey,LA Times,Fairness Doctrine,media bias

Looking to the Future: America version 44.0

That, as they say, is that. President-elect Barack Obama is correct in saying that, "a defining moment of change has come to America."

As the first president with a minority background, he will always hold a significant place in national history, but his effectiveness in delivering on the promise of change must be measured both in terms of quantity and direction as he assumes the roles of chief executive and commander-in-chief.

Change is not hard-wired to run in only a positive direction. Neither is it a constant that change that causes positive effects for one person or family will not have a negative effect on others. Nor is it like a domesticated pet that can be leashed; unintended consequences are the bane of every change-artist politico.

Despite all of the realities and wildcards - known by way of hindsight - change sounds good. Even when we do not have the benefit of seeing it in legislative form, but only hear the happy populist rhetoric that scintillates crowds on the campaign trail, change makes us feel like good times are just around the bend. The grass is always greener. Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah.

The question that faces us is to what degree Obama's victory is also a mandate for the changes he will attempt to make, in terms of judicial appointments and cabinet postings, as well as his policy agenda. There are many reasons to suspect that the Democrat wave that swept the country yesterday was a public relations success, not an ideological one, because the ideology has yet to manifest itself in a clear legislative policymaking agenda.

Based on campaign promises, a person voting for Obama may have done so simply because they believed he would lower their taxes. To them, he might represent the values of conservativism in a package that was more appealing than that grumpy ol' John McCain. If not for the fine print that will become the essence of how Obama delivers on his other promises without bankrupting the country, that voter might get what they are expecting. With that in mind, it may not be smart for Obama to rapidly conclude that the results of this election represent a mandate for the liberal objectives that were challenged by his McCain, as well as members of the media, without much in the way of substantive response from Obama.

It is probably unrealistic to expect Democrat politicians - now in cloistered conclave, contemplating what can be accomplished whilst we have one-party rule - to question whether a juggernaut liberal agenda for the first session of 2009 is not the will of the people. No one wants to look a gift horse in the mouth, but ignoring the possibility that the electorate may not have been voicing a mandate, despite the results of the election, could have the effects both of ensuring a pendulum swing back in 2010 to a Republican-dominated Congress and the exacerbation of the country's current economic predicament.

Based on our two year history with the party leadership of Reid and Pelosi, the Democrats will gulp greedily from the chalice handed them without too much concern for why it was given to them in the first place. After all, it would be somewhat rational - although short-sighted - to conclude that yesterday's results were a clear message of animosity toward Republican candidates and the values underpinning their party.

In the presidential race, while several states switched from red to blue, not one flipped in the other direction. The same trend is shaping up in the Senate, House, and gubernatorial races, although the Minnesota race between Coleman and Franken will have to be decided after at least one recount. (Minnesota GOP attorneys should connect with the Washington State GOP for a briefing on lessons learned from having close statewide races slip through their hands. Reference: Gorton/Cantwell, 2000, Rossi/Gregoire, 2004.)

If the election was intended to be a repudiation of the conservative values that are often associated with the Republican party, one might think that traditionally conservative issues should have suffered as well, but, for reasons as yet unknown, rays of conservative light can be seen, if we want to squint really, really hard.

• Bans on gay marriage (as distinguished from civil unions or domestic partnerships) in California, Florida and Arizona are passing, although they will almost certainly face immediate court battles.
• Nebraska voted to end affirmative action policies of the state government by a 58 to 42 percent margin.

On the other hand, 'value of life' issues were losers. Washington state passed Initiative 1000, a law legalizing doctor-prescribed suicide that has been criticized for its failure to provide common sense safeguards. South Dakota and California failed to pass abortion limits propositions, and Colorado's attempt to legally define life as beginning at the moment conception was crushed by voters.

In the weeks and months ahead, Republicans will come to some conclusions about why they lost (psst, get the base on the line and see if they have an alibi for where they all were on Election Night), and the Democrats will come to their own conclusions about why they won. This will all go into the big Mid-term Election Strategy hopper.

Meanwhile, Obama will be naming cabinet nominees, assembling White House staff and mapping out the agenda for his first one hundred days. With a Democrat-controlled Congress, and a media presumably still panting after "The One", maintain a grip on reality will be harder for Republicans and conservatives than any time since 1976.

Nevertheless, after the electoral college convenes and the inauguration takes places in the cold January air of the nation's capital, President-elect Obama will become the President Obama. He will be America's president and my president, despite my having voted for Senator John McCain.

I hope that those who may despair, or even fear, an Obama presidency will remember that the presidency is the symbol of our nation's strength and the office deserves its own measure of respect, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

I also hope that those who rejoiced last night remember that the greatest strength of our system is in the value we place on keeping a hot furnace of debate stoked. No matter how dire our circumstances may be, or what stakes lay before us, honest and open-minded argument about issues is vital and should be embraced. Brand loyalty might give us warm feelings when choosing a carbonated beverage, but blind partisanship should chill us if it becomes the only factor in how we, as individuals, arrive at our decisions to vote or how we judge the performance of our government.

Answers to tough questions should be demanded from the new president and the congress serving beside him, and we should all be color-blind in that pursuit, focusing only on the merits of proposals, considerate of the effects government actions may have on the fabric of American life.

So, too, should President-elect Obama recognize that he is in uncharted waters. With virtually no executive experience, and absolutely no experience dealing with matters of foreign affairs, he should be careful to avoid catering to the masses. Foreign policy is not an area for ideological experimentation, as so many presidents have learned after it was too late. Poll respondents on the questions of Iraq and Afghanistan do not receive the daily intelligence briefing that Obama will soon begin receiving. As distasteful as it may be, even the most idealistic presidents have to succumb to the harshness of realpolitik.

Obama should also carefully consider the weight of his proposals and the real impact that many would have on American families and individuals. If any set of American values do still exist that cross party lines they would be the desire for freedom, choice and opportunity. When politicians have not been careful to protect those values in our laws and way of life, they have paid the price in mid-term elections and their own bids to stay in office.

We are capable of emerging through the crises ahead - challenges that await us like predators shrouded in a concealing fog - but only if we are willing to be critical, open-minded and involved in the process of government. The media sits in the important position of moderating the conversation. More respect in our culture is needed and the nation's media are uniquely able to present an example to Americans of how issues should discussed and differences resolved. By promoting authentic respect for differing points of view in the newsroom, and a transparent balance in how issues are covered, a more robust and civil conversation can develop.

Less talking and more active listening is required. True, it sounds more like a prescription for couples counseling than political communication, but haven't the last eight years felt a bit like the country is in the throes of a bitter divorce? Would it hurt either side to occasionally acknowledge - publicly - when the opposition has the facts right, instead of simply racing down Diatribe Boulevard?

If we are truly interested in defining our problems or finding solutions, we need to be getting a lot closer to the truth than the current style of political discourse allows.

The first political party, or politician to put down the bullhorn and the pom-poms and speak to all Americans either as one who thinks as they do or as one who respects their beliefs despite disagreement, will reap the enormous benefits of true leadership.

###

This piece was subsequently published November 7, 2008 on the Crosscut.com website, with minor editing, under the headline 'Questioniong the promise of change'.

My Predictions: Does McCain Have a Legitimate Chance? Absolutely.

Here's One Analysis That Might Give McCain Voters a Spring in Their Step on Election Day 

There is no doubt that this election will be a close contest and every vote will be important in the final count.  Fear, hope, anxiety, optimism and despair are gripping voters of all backgrounds and the country has been plunged into a cauldron of racial politics, class politics and good old fashioned lying for a year and a half.  If Rasmussen or Zogby could correlate blood pressure and heart rate along with voting preference insurance actuaries would be bracing for a run on the hospitals.

Here's how I justify giving McCain the states that are currently painted blue on most mainstream media maps, states that could tip the election for a McCain victory.

Pennsylvania (21 EV), Minnesota (10 EV) and Wisconsin (10 EV): There is every reason to believe that Obama has failed to secure crucial support among union workers (as differentiated from the union leadership) that is so crucial to these blue collar states.  High democratic turnout in the primaries was at a time when Obama and Senator Clinton were going at each other full force.  There will be a lot of Clinton supporters who will simply stay home or jump the fence to vote for McCain.

Florida (27 EV): In the primaries, the ratio of GOP votes to Dem votes was 1.12:1, and Florida is a state in which party politics still drives electioneering.  Also, in the primary election, McCain got a 5.3% better showing than polls were predicting just before the vote, demonstrating that Team McCain knows how to get out the vote in the Sunshine State.

Three other voting blocs will be critical.

Jewish voters have proven to be difficult to poll accurately.  The issue of how Obama will protect Israel may bring many of these voters to a single issue decision.

Florida is represented largely in the military.  All responsible polling has indicated a heavy McCain vote coming from the armed forces.

Immigrants who came here seeking asylum from despotic or communist oppression.  This includes tens of thousands of Vietnamese, Cuban, Haitian, and other Latin Americans who have made their homes in Florida.  Will McCain's efforts to pin Obama as a socialist be in their minds as they mark their ballots?

Nevada (5 EV): Using the primary turnout to calculate the same 'strength-of-base' ratio as I used to predict Florida for McCain, Nevada shows a 2.11:1 ratio of GOP voters to Dem voters.

Of course, McCain also has to win the races in which he is currently running ahead in the polls.  It's not going to be an easy victory, and at this point he has to be considered an underdog.

It is time to simply go and do our civic duty, come what may.

Make Tonight Family Game Night Until 8:30ET, In Defense of Baseball and the American Way

Potentially the Greatest Baseball Blunder Since Buckner in '86

There is no example in American history of a political showcase preempting the World Series, just as there is no example of a sporting event preempting an election.  They are once-in-a-lifetime events, and we previously, collectively, considered them to be greater than an individual.  Now I wonder if we should just insert 'Obama' between baseball and apple pie.

The very fact that the World Series schedule was already established at the time Team Obama made their media buys shows every indication that they are as out of touch as critics contend, but also that they are showing - again - their predictable ability to take their eye off the ball. 

A virtual cone of silence seems to have descended today within the advertising and entertainment trade press on the subject of Obama's infomercial that will air across several networks and is said to have cost the campaign between $3 and $5 million.  Still, I was able to find commentary from PRWeek's Ted McKenna, offering some take on the obvious downside of Obama's media blitz.

Enjoying a major cash advantage over the John McCain campaign, the Obama campaign has been able to place advertising in all sorts of unexpected places of late, including video games. Some political commentators wonder whether there might be a downside for the campaign in potentially irritating voters by the practically ubiquitous Obama advertising.

McKenna references Jeanne Cummings' 'Obama infomercial: Smart politics or risky overkill?' piece (Politico.com) in which she attempts to make the point that this strategy of a media blitz helps Obama to avoid "the filter of the media".  In fact, it is just as likely that the opposite will occur and that the media will be talking about this for the next few days in the analysis and commentary portion of the story's new cycle. 

Neglecting the realities of the news cycle will not be the greatest effect caused by this larger-than-life blunder.  It will be the backlash of a politicians greatest bugaboo - the loyal sports fan.

I offer the following encapsulated geography lesson for the Democrat nominee's edification.  If anyone has his - or David Axelrod's - email, feel free to forward.

For many baseball fans (the last two World Series games received an a little more than 15 million viewers each) the baseball championship is an destination, not an event - a place to which they have been traveling for months, even years.  Nowhere is that more true than in Philadelphia, a city whose baseball franchise hasn't appeared in a World Series in fifteen years and hasn't been victorious in one since 1980.

The Philadelphia Phillies hail from...  Philadelphia, a large metropolis in the state of Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania is a state in which Senator McCain has been gaining ground in the last week, a state that swung hard for Hillary Clinton and came in weak for Senator Obama in the primaries.

In the opposite dugout are the Tampa Bay Rays, whose fans are clinging on to hope that their team can fend off elimination and possibly play on to win their first championship.  Another point of geographic fact: Tampa Bay is in Florida, a state in which the McCain campaign has been gaining ground in the last week, a state that swung hard for Clinton and came in weak for Obama in the primaries, even though the Democrat Florida primary didn't officially count.

I asked myself a question: If my Seattle Mariners were in the World Series, set to play the clinching game and possibly bring the championship to Jet City, and General Motors showered the broadcasting network with enough cash to bump the baseball game for the airing of a half-hour advertisement for the new Yukon hybrid, I would be furious and it would negatively affect my feelings about GM.

When your name is Lenny Bruce you can get away with showing conceit for your audience, not if your name is Barack Obama.  In battleground states, walking on eggshells is standard operating procedure when you're the front-runner and inconveniencing sports fans just so you can broadcast another political ad that comes following a tsunami of political ads may just be enough of an irritation to sway precious votes.

Or not.  I could be wrong.  But if you were Barack Obama, would you feel like you need to take that chance?   

Senator Obama's has seriously overestimated the public's appetite for political theater, and similar misjudgments have often placed him in hot water during the campaign.  This time, the look for tiny bubbles forming in the pot as the Democrat nominee places himself ahead of the national pastime; and this gives Obama's opponents a chance to drive the temperature to 212 degrees Fahrenheit.  Meanwhile, John McCain will continue to smile and point to left field.

Batter up.

Harris Poll: McCain Preferred by One Percent of French

I can think of no better reason to vote for McCain.

Brevity is the shortest path to truth.  This one speaks for itself.  I grabbed the story from Fox News.

If that didn't do it for you, maybe knowing that the speaker of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijiani, would prefer an Obama presidency will tip the scales. You can peruse that tidbit at the Telegraph UK site.

NYT: Please Be Advised that Voting May Be Hazardous to Your Life, and Your Child's

From the same newspaper that has reported eloquently and abundantly on the bogeyman of Republican use of fear politics, the Old Grey Lady raises her cane to deliver a double-whammy of paranoia to those readers still shackled to the carefully crafted words on her faded pages.

Whammy number one: Polling places may become magnets for violence on the day of the election.

Whammy number two: Wait a second, doesn't your child's school serve as a polling place?

They're pulling out all of the stops, reaching into the deepest recesses of the bag of tricks for what can hypereuphemistically be called "election enhancements" for the Democrat cause.

The implication is made clear in the third paragraph of the piece (emphasis added):

“School districts across the country now spend millions of dollars each year on controlling access to buildings with locked doors and surveillance cameras to keep strangers out,” said Kenneth Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services, an advocacy group, in Cleveland. “In a post-Columbine, post-9/11 world, we shouldn’t be opening the doors at our schools on Election Day, and just hoping everything will be O.K.”

With no evidence indicated in the rest of the article that government law enforcement agencies were in any heightened state of readiness, or had indications of actual planned attacks, this kind of fear-mongering would seem to have only one purpose; to keep people from going to the polls and provide whatever candidate wished to embrace the paranoia a tool to assume a mantle of victimhood for their followers. (If you need a hint to solve the mystery of who might pick it up just do a web search for news items containing terms racial, violence and election to perform your own analysis.)

Then look up "Odinga".

The ability to vote without fear has been what has separated us from less civilized parts of the world where power is consolidated through the manipulation of basic instincts for survival.

Are we to become the "thugocracy" that Michael Barone feels is our future? If the populace responds to the New York Times obvious attempt to spread fear through false mirroring of popular opinion, maybe that is the path we are on.

God save America and her perpetual determination to coddle only one fear - the loss of her freedom - and confront all threats to our liberty.

Cross-posted at Sound Politics Public Blog.

Video: This is the John McCain I Know and Love

Watch this FoxNews coverage of last night's Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York.  John McCain absolutely flattens the crowd and roasts Obama is sitting a few chairs away on the dais.

I laughed out loud and it renewed my faith in the potential for McCain ability to regain momentum.  Please take the time out of your day to watch the entirety of both videos.  In a time of economic crisis and an uncertain political landscape, this will really cheer you up.

Cross-posted at Sound Politics Public Blog.

Taking Down a Messiah: It's a Grass Roots Thing

There are large numbers of voters out there who have yet to understand the relevance of Senator Obama's associations with left-wing radical extremists. I don't blame them, really, because the on-stage Obama talks like a Clinton Democrat - middle of the road; a staunch defender of the middle class and promoter of America as a global economic force. The accusation that he has a socialist agenda just doesn't seem to fit because, in order for Obama's soul to be wedded to the far left, he would have to be lying (gasp!) about what he truly believes just in order to get elected. This could not happen because, as we all know, politicians never lie in order to fulfill their political ambitions.

The truth is that when you turn down the volume on the Obama "White Noise" Machine (yes, that is a direct reference to Don DeLillo's novel, and if you don't get the reference you should read the book), and examine the path of his rise to power, a realization emerges that Obama is not the skilled politician we are supposed to admire him to be, or he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Obama's eventual denouncement of Reverend Wright was done only for political expedience, as anyone who reads Obama's Dreams from my Father can learn for themself. (Check it out from the library to avoid putting any more money in Obama's pocket.) He was aware of, and attracted to, the Reverend's extreme beliefs, and they fit in nicely with Obama's own racially-tinted worldview which is described in great, glorious detail in his own words in his best-selling book.

To what extent does Obama share Rev. Wright's feelings about Jews? It isn't entirely clear and Obama has not been outspoken enough in making his differences clear on that specific issue. Perhaps he is satisfied to keep certain communities guessing, using racial politics to his advantage. Or maybe the message he sends to Israel by suggesting that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions is also a coded message of solidarity to the anti-Semitic factions of the left?

Obama's spectacular flamenco dance around the Bill Ayers association is also an amazing display of distraction tactics. Logic and American wisdom are all that is needed to cut through the stagecraft.

If Obama was a mover and a shaker in Chicago politics, and Ayers hosted his coming out party to the Dem apparatus, and he dined on occasion with Ayers and his wife, and he worked on committees with Ayers, and Ayers and his wife were giving interviews to Connie Chung in which they beamed with pride about their terrorist agenda while operating the Weathermen, and Obama was supporting educational programs that paralleled Ayer's own ideas, if all of those things (and more, but I fear that this run-on sentence will soon become lethal) are occurring within the same time scope, is it still plausible for Obama to recite the story that he wasn't aware of Ayers radical beliefs? If so, I think Orwell just lost a side bet with Stalin in the great beyond.

Even with all of the mainstream media assistance, McCain and Palin having turned up the heat on these connections has begun to force the Obama campaign to subject us all to more laughable explanations (see "lies" in your Berlitz Axelrod-to-English Dictionary) and I think the time is right for public common sense to kick in and break the trance in which these snake-charmers have placed millions of Americans.

The event horizon in which undecided voters make decisions is around 4 or 5 days, meaning that whatever the main street or water cooler buzz is in the 5 days leading up to the election will have a large impact on those voters who were not already voting along party lines. Even those who may have professed a decision to choose one candidate over another, might be prone flip-flop depending on late-breaking changes in the conversation.

(Side Note: When you analyze poll numbers, look closely. Obama leads are not as juggernaut-like as one might think from listening to CNN or MSNBC.)

If a late break for McCain is to occur - as happened for Truman and Kennedy - it will come as a result of both campaign efforts and grass roots, friend-to-friend melee. To deny Obama the privilege of making the White House his final stepping stone in a political career that seems to have benefited only Barack Obama, and not the people he has made promises to, each person is going to have to be willing to bravely conduct their own 25-day political campaign.

Unleash the politician within yourself. Be prepared to put your ideas on the line and persuading people you know to consider carefully who they are going to vote for. Keep coming back to this blog and others for talking points. I, for one, will try and give you solid, non-confrontational ways to start these conversations, and we'll avoid the kind of extreme lunacy that turns off the average person. This won't be won by making attacks, it will be won by winning the overall battle of ideas, and that can be done.

Keep coming back in these final weeks of the election season. Send your friends, too. Don't be afraid of ridicule. We all differ in opinions; you have the right to yours, and we all have the responsibility to keep an open mind. Our job is to challenge those open minds that are left in this country and make the case for voting for McCain.

Cross-posted at Sound Politics Public Blog.

Is the McCain Campaign Playing With Fire With New "Liar" Strategy?

Even if you believe only one of the candidates running for president, it is clear that at least one pair of pants is on fire.

"Liar! liar!" has been both the chorus and refrain from Senator Obama's camp running all the way back to his snatching of the nomination from the jaws of Hillary Clinton. As desperation set in, the McCain-Palin ticket has finally caught on that their straight talk rhetoric begs for straight walk follow-through. McCain has launched an attack against Obama's lies that is short on subtlety and will likely be the deciding skirmish in his campaign for the White House.

When Obama lies - and by that I mean that he denies certain facts, or chooses to play a hide-and-seek game on topics that do not present a strong image to the general public - John and Sarah will no longer avoid using the "L" word. After listening to Biden and Obama smear both of their records and then hold the distortions up for all to see as an example of "lying" on the part of Team Maverick, it's about time they took the gloves off.

I will disclose that I have previously written on the distastefulness of using this potentially slanderous verb - lie - in public discourse. It is the nuclear bomb of political campaigning because of the collateral damage it inflicts by polarizing the electorate and lowering the standards of political discourse.

The verb should only be entered into a campaign when it is clear that a candidate is stubbornly omitting or obfuscating in order to avoid taking any consequences for some action they have taken that the people need to know about. Each politician must make their own
Truman-esque decision and will be judged by the voters on whether the end justified the use of catastrophic rhetorical ordnance.

In my opinion, the preconditions to allow McCain to go on the attack, and not wait for the media to catch Obama in lies, have not only been met, but I believe that he is morally obligated to make these charges.

It's a double jeopardy strategy on McCain's part that will only work if McCain can activate that most valuable portion of the human character - common sense. When confronted with an accusation and uncertain facts, the average person tends to want to fill in the blanks to make some judgment of their own. We are all reporters at heart, and when something stinks we are compelled to find the cause.

So far, the public's ignorance of Obama's messy past and the full weight of his ambitions has not met the stink test, because the mainstream media has done a fantastic job of spraying him down with several cans of air freshener every day. At any moment in the news cycle, Obama and Axelrod can select from the pleasing scents of Katie Couric, Soledad O'Brien, Campbell Brown, and a host of other starry-eyed media cohorts to neutralize their unpleasant campaign aromas.

What McCain must do over the course of the next week - and beginning in tonight's debate - is to hold up a big flashing red neon arrow pointing to the steaming pile that Obama has tried to keep the public from getting a deep whiff of. Even media voices who bathe each morning in Eau de Barack won't fight the public if the common sense wakes them up. Just ask Dan Rather.

It is obvious that McCain is prepared to make his case not only that Obama is lying, but that his cult-like following is beginning to take on some sinister characteristics.

In his speech this morning, McCain said, "I guess [Obama] believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed."

Whoever wrote McCain's speech was deliberately referencing (for those of us in the know) the infamous quote from Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist, who said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." McCain is willing to risk inciting Armageddon in order to alert us to something much more dangerous than the loss of this election. He seeks to alert us to the abandonment of logic that has fueled the insomnia of many freedom-lovers and has seductively ensnared many Obama supporters in a fog of ignorant bliss.

Americans have always been proud of their individualism, their self-proclaimed immunity to nationalism and fascism. Those movements start when the masses begin to follow without question, to subordinate their own instincts and thoughts to the great good of "The Cause". If "The One" can't even submit himself to a mild vetting, he is not fit to lead. Whatever their final ballot choice may be, voters deserve answers.

Cross-posted at the Sound Politics Public Blog

Are Biden's Gaffes a Serious Issue or Just Petty Mistakes?

The University of Delaware should immediately be petitioned to invalidate any and all credits Senator Biden may have earned in courses dealing with United States history or economics.  They can offer a series of night courses as a way for the senator to hold on to his degrees.

Biden's latest gaffe comes during an interview with Couric, conducted aboard the campaign bus.  In an attempt to challenge the economic experience of the McCain/Palin ticket and capitalize on American's fears about economic recession/depression he had the following comments (full video clip below):

"Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence and to demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about and communicate to the people, 'If you listen to me and follow what I'm suggesting we can fix this.' 

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed.  He said, "Look, here's what happened."'

Factless Gaffe #1 - The stock market crash occurred in 1929.  Americans did not have televisions in 1929.  Perhaps Biden has knowledge that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was secretly experimenting in his own basement with the invention of television broadcasting.  Even if the absurd were true, no one would have been watching.

Factless Gaffe #2 - FDR was the governor of New York in 1929 - not president - and was not in a position to address the nation as its leader.  It's true that FDR was described by those close to him as being arrogant, but assuming the role of national cheerleader was beyond the reach of even his ego.

After Biden had fallen from his horse to land in a pile of steaming historical inaccuracy, Couric appeared unaware that anything he had said was worthy of further questioning.  I don't remember Couric being that polite when interviewing Republicans.

The big question is whether Biden's gaffe (and the dozens of others in the past and to follow) matters or is it just opportunistic nitpicking to jump on Biden's mistake?  I don't want to be accused of making commentary that only rises to the level of splitting hairs.

Aside from the sublime irony of a stocking a sanctimonious lecture on being knowledgeable with factual errors, I guess it's just a question of how much arrogance and thick-headedness voters are willing to tolerate in their leaders.  I suggest that it matters a great deal.

Understanding history can give us a powerful tool by showing us the outcomes of human decisions taken within a specific environment and framed by specific events.  In our personal lives, we apply some version of historical hindsight every day.  It gives us a template from which to make good choices, but only if we are making choices based on all of the facts.

If facts aren't important to how Biden takes his lessons from history then we can assume that he will fail to be educated by the past.  How can we put faith in politicians who are comfortable making choices for the country based on half of the facts?

We can't expect our leaders to be perfect, but we must expect them to avail themselves of some basic facts to inform their decisions.  Or, let's not even leave it up to them.  The voters can just get our facts straight and not elect those who do not.

Joe Biden's Words Echo Big Government Sentiments of FDR

Maybe Senator Joe Biden didn't actually quote word for word from another politician this time, but his tactic of shaming Americans for not wanting to pay more is as old as the New Deal politics he and Senator Obama will inflict on the nation if they are successful in their bid for the White House.

In a speech given to the American Retail Federation on May 22, 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt voiced the following sentiments:

"The second condition is that in the repeal of this tax we shall not return to the old tax evasion loophole by which a very small group of people with incomes in the very high brackets were able, until two years ago, to leave their profits in closely held corporations, thus avoiding the full rates of the higher brackets on their personal incomes. It seems to me that patriotic people everywhere will not want to go back to that old pernicious habit." Source in link

Compare that to Biden's quote from his interview on ABC's Good Morning America program of September 18, 2008, speaking to the wealthier Americans.

"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

It seems as though the only that has changed in 70 years with the Democratic Party is the ability to condense FDR's desire to put the government's hand in everyone's wallet into a snappy sound bite.

The Seeds Have Been Planted for Post-Election Democrat Claims of Election Fraud

It appears that the public relations team lurking behind the Obama campaign has seized upon a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report which identifies a series of problems with voting machines and voter roll maintenance programs not addressed since the last national election in 2004.  The angle of the CNN.com story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html) is that these problems exist in the same key swing states that have recently been trending in McCain's direction - Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Will the outcome of this election be immediately challenged if McCain is victorious?  The odds on it are probably better than the odds of your stock portfolio seeing any capital gains this quarter.

The Democrats have proven to be masters of the art of molding public opinion through the use of push polls and feeding stories to the media.  This is no exception.

The Dems are playing with nitroglycerin.  They have cried, "Stolen Election!" in the past four contests, fueling alienation and anger in a large group of voters.  Added to the mix this year, is their other pet project, "The Race Card", and I fear that the combination will create an explosive reaction on November 5th if McCain has won the election in constitutional terms.

The two-pronged strategy of undermining fundamental election laws and priming public opinion to see a McCain victory is tainted may produce results in this election that are not as easy to contain as in the Kerry/Edwards loss of 2004.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html

The People Ignore Celebrity Politico-Babble; Why Can't the Media?

Old Dogs Don't Learn New Tricks Until the Old Bone Stops Tasting Good

Memo to {Insert Name of Hollywood Left-Wing Notable Here}:

The brain is a tool for sorting through rational arguments. 

Your brain, specifically, ceases to function properly when the paparazzi show up.

Any questions?

The Hollywood left is not political and I am not writing that with sarcasm.  Politics is the process through which power is shared and celebrities do not like sharing.  Celebrities like Pam Anderson, Oprah, Susan Sarandon or so many like-minded glitterati have only one common motivator - they don't like being upstaged.

Like moths to the porch light, whenever cameras take aim, it is impulse that propels their insertion into the spotlight.  Bonded by lack of secondary talents to a career in entertainment, the urge to take center stage is very likely beyond their control.  A sixth sense alerts the common celebrity that attention is being paid to someone other than them and the body and mouth take over.  The brain, often, gets left behind in the shuffle.

During the campaign, whether it has been Senator Obama or Governor Palin soaking up camera time, the stars have "leaned in" whenever and wherever possible.

When everything in your world tells you that "you" are the center of it, and that must be compounded on a daily basis by how little effect the average celebrity has on the world around them. 

In cosmic terms, the American celebrity is like a massive black hole, an object of such density that it consumes energy and matter but throws nothing back out to the universe that feeds it.

But when celebrity commentary intersects with politics, we have the equivalent of a having a belly dancer perform at a one year-old's birthday party.  A lot of movement that distracts from the real purpose and which leaves you a little nauseous.

As mimicry is the first resort of children when they want attention, it is only natural that the celebs will begin to babble about politics when Americans start diverting their interest in that direction.  Right now that big bad Sarah Palin is getting everyone's attention and it's just not fair. 

It's just not fair because in contrast to Obama, Palin isn't willing to pander to their liberal agenda and doesn't get stars in her eyes just thinking about rubbing elbows with the chosen few.  She has, in effect, said to Hollywood, "And I should know who you are because...?"

(We all that Senator Obama is omnipotent therefore is already aware that without popularity the celebs would be spending as much time talking up his policies as they will spend talking up the next Tom Selleck project.)

The celebs are like the friend we all had in college who had an uncanny ability to show up just after the pizza arrived and just before the hat was passed around to pay for it.

By not selling out to Babylon, Palin and McCain send the message that they will not ignore the hypocrisies of the Hollywood liberal elite.  They have achieved complete understanding that box office numbers to not translate into votes at the ballot box even if Hollywood has not. 

Will the Next President Inherit a New Cold War?

Presidential Candidates Must Be Quizzed on How They Would Handle an Expansionist Russia

America is now fully engulfed in election fever.  Republicans are energized by their ticket, Democrats have tasted blood in their own mouths and are responding to the ring of the bell.

The horse race, however, is obscuring from our view important events that will inform voters on Election Day.  Those who declare that a President McCain would merely execute the Bush foreign policy ignore one obvious and important reality - President Bush has not had to develop a comprehensive foreign policy doctrine to address a post-Soviet expansionist Russia.

Grappling with the enigma of Russia's new foreign policy will be the number one challenge of our next president.  It intersects with all other concerns.  Without safety and security, economic concerns and other social issues become secondary.  There is a reason that Thomas Jefferson ordered his causes as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". There is no duty higher than meeting the potential threat of a waking Russian bear. 

At its most benign, Russia intends only to achieve some measure of energy security with its new policy and it has no interest in engaging in a full-scale Cold War.  The malignant and more probable reality is that the old Soviet heart of Russia's power elite sings again with the dream of expansion.  Emboldened by America's low standing in the halls of power around the world, it is likely that they have foreseen a window of opportunity that must be seized.

Russia's actions - in the recent days, weeks and months - are not isolated, and should be seen as part of a broader strategy.  They can also not be excused any longer as appeasement of hard-liners, as some have suggested in the past.  It also makes very little sense to read Russian actions as a temporary challenge to the United States' response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, namely sending our warships into the Black Sea.

The Venezuelan-Russian alliance could also be seen as advantageous for a Russia that has its mind set on influencing the world's energy resource supply and delivery.  But with Venezuela being a staunch enemy to the United States, Russia has no fear in "losing" any battle for oil rights or access to supply to America.

By deduction, we know there is more at work within the Russian strategy.  

In interpersonal terms, the relationship between Venezuela and Russia has just gone from holding hands to sleeping over.  If Russia was only leaving a toothbrush in the bathroom cabinet we could rest at night.  Tu-160 Blackjack long-range strategic bombers, capable of carrying nuclear payloads, landed in Venezuela yesterday, with an official explanation that they will be conducting training flights.  That's a toothbrush with operational range capable of delivering a first-strike nuclear payload Washington, D.C.

The Tu-160s arrived two days after joint Venezuelan-Russian naval exercises were announced for later this year - to be held in the Caribbean - and the same day that Venezuelan strongman President Hugo Chavez issued a 72-hour order to the United States ambassador to leave the country.

Despite official statements to the contrary, undoubtedly it has already occurred to officials at the State Department and the Department of Defense that Russia may be establishing its right to conduct military training exercises in our hemisphere for the purpose of establishing a more permanent military presence over time. 

In the past, it has only been the ability of the United States to project its power that has given us leverage in moments of diplomatic crisis.  What effect would a similar Russian ability have on international relations?  It would be foolish to assume that Russia has no such intentions of following the model the United States has already demonstrated to be a pattern for power expansion.

Understated comment of the week: It would be destabilizing.

Even if the Russians do not establish a more permanent military presence in South America, it has been clear over the preceding year that they are very comfortable in taking openly hostile statements in opposition to United States policy.  The knee-jerk response to our designs to build a missile defense system in Europe should have reminded policymakers that Russia is still very aware that its nuclear arsenal gives it power. 

Even a rusting giant can earn superpower respect at the negotiating table when their words are backed by atomic weapons.  The only piece that has been missing from Russia's application of its yet-to-be-determined foreign policy doctrine, was that the world had assumed that Russia was more concerned with economic growth than power expansion.  By invading Georgia, the threat that Russia is capable of using force to achieve its goals was given credibility.

We can leave the intricate machine of policy implementation and formation up to experts who have far more information than those of us without a daily briefing could ever gather.  We cannot, though, put off the hitting the presidential candidates on the "what ifs". Answers to these hard questions are not optional, and journalists should not accept less than directness or shy away from explaining to their readers, viewers and listeners why these topics are important.  The stakes are too high to move forward in blissful ignorance.

This is cross-posted at Dancing With Bears (http://dancing-with-bears.blogspot.com). 

"Euro-trash Talk" at MTV VMAs is Most Recent Example of Obama's Failure to Lead

Can Palin-Mania Become a Negative for McCain?

For years, my household has forgone subscribing to cable and satellite television.  Although we have televisions in our home for watching DVDs and playing games, we will not subscribe to cable or satellite service.  Even our rabbit ears stay in the storage closet.  Sometimes--such as when we were forced to watch the Palin and McCain speeches on CNN.com streaming video--the temptation arises to cave in and let the wave of confused values wash over our little family. 

Then comes a moment such as the rant of a self-appointed "representative of the global community", British heroin, sex, alcohol and attention addict, Russell Brand, this year's host of MTV's Video Music Awards.  While he may have been chosen to make Britney Spears, in her re-debut, seem cultured and stable, I believe he was sent to give me strength and reaffirm the decision to keep the mainstream video media out of my family's home.

Brand's grand pique (or was it really a grand mal?) was to suggest that opposition to an Obama presidency is motivated by racism. 

We can't really blame Brand for not recognizing the arrogance and hypocrisy of coming to America and insinuating that not voting for Obama is tantamount to racism.  His drug-addled mind should not be held to the same standards of lucidity as the rest of us.

Let's ignore, of course, the fact that the alleged enlightened nations of Northern and Western Europe (that includes the blessed United Kingdom, Mr. Brand), have yet to elect anyone of color to their highest office or even anyone who wouldn't require SPF 2000 to sustain a moment in the sun.  I'll ignore this glaring oversight because none of us need be worried about Mr. Brand being instrumental in sending any voters to the polls who might vote for Obama. 

Everyone is aware of the inverse rule of political action when it comes to the 18-25 crowd.  The louder and meaner the mockery becomes, the greater the probability of that person hitting the snooze button on November 4th instead of rising early to get to the polls.

Forget about the Hurricane Sarah bump in the polls, or the convention bump, I will be looking for a "Brand bump" in recoil from the lunacy of Brand's rambling endorsement of Obama and childish attacks on Governor Sarah Palin.  Nothing mobilizes a parent like the reality of a Pied Piper is lusting after their child's soul.  When a candidate like Obama does not adequately distance himself from voices such as Brand he fails to lead but he also passively endorses the ideas Brand spews forth. 

Americans have always been the world's last and best guardians of common sense.  Surely, on the fringes--where Brand bounces and jangles like a court jester--the lunacy will always seem reasonable.  But at the end of the day, when Hollywood and the left play the fool it reminds the greater population their values and mobilizes them to react against things that threaten those values.

Where are the "new politics" Obama has promised?  Brand's comments are just part of the crescendo in a flurry of attacks against Sarah Palin, her family, people who identify with Sarah Palin, or people who believe that simply being black isn't a reason to give a candidate their vote.

Obama might earn some respect from the electorate if he at least attempted to lead the younger generation (and the older generations, for that matter) into a more evolved notion of the responsibilities of citizenship.  Perhaps he will become our president, but he will never be a leader until he learns how to step into the breach and promote the values of common sense that have made America great.

Thus far he has been a spectator in the great circus of chaos that has been the Democratic Party since the post-Carter schism, and this Brand spectacle is just one example.  Another was Code Pink's disruption of McCain's acceptance speech (not that it hurt the ratings), and we again saw that Obama has no control over his own followers.  When he requests civility, Code Pink ignores him.  When he sends the clear message that he will not tolerate personal attacks on Palin or her family, his campaign and associated mouthpieces push forward and conduct a campaign of smearing her and her family.  How can Obama unite a country that is divided by harsh rhetoric when he can not even convince the far fringes of his party to act their age and play nice?

(There is also some reason to believe that his campaign has actively begun a media push to accentuate Obama's clean family image as a contrast to the perception being created in the media that Palin's family is not perfect.  The Obama campaign almost certainly had input on the glowing portrayal of the clean, happy Obama family on OK Magazine's cover that sits directly beside the notorious US Weekly Palin hit piece at most grocery checkouts.)

Voters do not need to wait for Obama to show leadership.  He has had ample opportunity since the beginning of this, the longest election period in American history.  We only need to look at the lack of respect he receives from those who support his candidacy.  The "Recreate '68" and MoveOn.org crowd has a greater hold over the liberal mind than their candidate for president.  Alas, we all hoped that age would mature the activist fervor that plagues the Democratic Party so that our nation could get around to solving some of the major issues we face.

GOP Values Demand Greater Response to Charges of "Lying"

Public Support for Senator Lieberman May Be Key to Winning Independent and Jewish Vote

My maternal grandmother taught me that to level the charge against someone of being a liar was the gravest of allegations, an attack against someone's character, integrity and that of their family.

Obama's operatives and the ruling elite of the DNC obviously didn't have the benefit of a moral grandmother.

Obama's key campaign people--led of late by David Axelrod--have been kicking and squirming about "lying" in one way or another since the beginning of the campaign, a useful slander that comes out whenever the opposition's comments about their candidate's statements or policies hit a little too close to the mark.

The tactic smacks of a style of politics that has never been well received by American voters. Self-righteousness is a turn-off for people who believe themselves to be beholden to something larger. That's a demographic that I don't think the Dems want to have stay home in November.

When it comes down to it, all any of have to offer is our word. Far ahead of our skills, or any amount of superficial charm, our integrity is the currency that binds all of our relationships, personal and economic. Calling someone a liar should never be done frivolously, or as a way to distract from some amount truth in what another person is saying.

It is time for the GOP and its members to put our mouths where our values are. While the party fights back against the scurrilous charge of lying the shell-shocked Obama campaign has leveled at the Day 2 Truth Squad, it is vital to stand publicly and vocally in unbroken support for Senator Joe Lieberman.

The GOP is a big tent party, as President Reagan proved, and by his actions Lieberman has shown that he is a courageous and principled man whose first priority is doing what is right, not what will make him the poster-child for the special interest group that the Democrat party has become. He has those basic values in common and it is time the we give him full faith and credit as an honorary party member.

Clearly, the Democrats and Obama have every reason to want to punish Lieberman. After all, he is voicing truths that they would rather remain undiscussed, but to call these things lies? That isn't just nipping at the toes of slander, it's biting it off at the knee.

Lieberman suggested that Obama, during his time in the U.S. Senate, did not work with Republicans, as the great Obama has tried to have us believe. Really, when one takes a moment to think about it, it does really seem silly to believe that someone could actually have worked with Republicans in Congress when he voted in lock-step with his party 95% of the time.

(Note to Senator Obama: Waving and saying "hi" to your Republican colleagues in the airport, on your way back home for campaign fund-raisers, does not equal working together.)

What the American people need is true leadership; leading begins with character. The GOP must show it is fair, benevolent and that we value our friends. Write letters to your community or city newspaper. Send an email of support to Lieberman, and communicate your disgust to your elected public officials. But most importantly, remember that integrity and character matter when you go to the polls in November.

CNN.com's Tradition of Unbiased Journalism Continues

Well, well, well. Had I blogged earlier when my intuition told me that the mainstream media couldn't help but play tricks with the first real act of the RNC, in what will probably end up being our third "down-to-the-wire" election in a row. I could have been heralded as a prophet. It was only a matter of time before CNN.com pulled one of its tricks. Just as prime-time rolls in, the RNC, Sarah Palin, and John McCain come down off the front page to be replaced by news of a hurricane that is almost a week away from the US coastline. When I was surfing last week during the DNC, it was wall-to-wall Obama/Biden, even when Gustav was becoming a news story.

My journalism teachers always taught me that relevance and timeliness were two of the primary factors governing placement of a a story. I guess they were wrong.

Sarah Palin's Proud Vice Presidential Heritage

We now have a major drama unfolding around John McCain's choice for VP. A governor having only just assumed the reins of their office, only having been previously elected to smattering of lesser offices, has now been nominated for the second highest office in the nation. It is easy to forget that this has happened before.

Here is the resume of one of our former vice presidents:

- Age 23: Elected to state legislature. Served 5 years.

- Age 31: After a short break from public life, he accepts a commission posting on a presidential commission where he serves for 4 years.

- Age 35: Becomes president of his city's board of police commissioners. Serves 2 years in this position.

- Age 37: Accepts a role as assistant secretary of a federal agency. Serves only 2 years when war breaks out and he elects to serve.

- Age 40: Runs for and wins state governor's race.

- Age 42: After only 2 years serving as the governor of his state, he is chosen as his party's vice presidential nominee.

After serving for only two years as a state governor, this man was chosen by his party as its vice presidential nominee.

Only two years holding a top-level office, combined with a smattering of other short stints in lower level positions, and this man was being placed a heartbeat away from the presidency! What were our predecessors thinking?

Of course it sounds familiar, but who is this mysterious person? You're probably thinking that you shouldn't feel stupid for not knowing. After all, with such a weak resume, they could have only been a footnote to history; a bystander in the White House.

The career I outlined is that of Teddy Roosevelt.

Yes, that Teddy Roosevelt. The one who would assume the presidency after President McKinley's assassination and go on to have his face carved into a South Dakota mountainside.

Roosevelt's choice as vice president is not judge to have been smart because he was the right choice "on paper". It was the right choice because of of the strength of his character. Experience matters less than how a person will make choices and from an early age, throughout his public life, Roosevelt demonstrated in word and deed that he was a man of action who would challenge and seek to demolish the forces that threatened to weaken our nation.

It is not right to say that Sarah Palin, should we be fortunate enough to call her Vice President after the election, would achieve the same kind of historical greatness that did Roosevelt. But she has the same mettle and instinct to wade into the fray and stand up to power when power is wrong. That is the kind of strength it will take to change America and remind ourselves how great this country truly is.

Content fed from htp://unequal-time.blogspot.com. All rights reserved by Bryan S. Myrick.

GOP Makes Best Choice for VP of Past 40 Years

It will take some time to fully research her record to find potential lightning-rod issues, but at the onset it appears as though Sarah Palin is a silver bullet choice as McCain's VP. 

Her genuine working class credentials will appeal to the heartland and she's a real conservative who has actually done with Alaska what McCain wants to do for the country.

Obama's convention bump is completely pre-empted.  All of the soul-points in the Obama campaign that have been resonating with the people, but which have only been ephemeral vagaries, allusions to what will happen in the future, can now be pointed to as real actions that the McCain is taking to send a message to America that we have changed. 

(Although a slight diversion from topic, this also brings to mind the glaring error that was made almost universally about the history being made with Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  Did we all forget that Elizabeth Dole (a Republican) placed 3rd in the 2000 Iowa Straw Poll in her run for the presidency?  Talk about being dissed!  Can Hillary reinvent the wheel and get credit for that too?)

A maverick/maverick ticket is a godsend.  The choice to give the nod to a woman shows the country that the GOP is serious about issues and that the Democrats couldn't manage to take action.  After all, if you didn't have to consider a civil war breaking out in the White House, Hillary Clinton would have been the best choice to be Obama's running mate. 

How many independent female voters are going to swing to McCain/Palin?  It's hard to say, but Palin's place on the ballot has the potential to be the deciding factor in a McCain victory.  The only way for McCain's campaign to realize that potential is to work diligently and genuinely to reach out to those voters and get out the vote. 

No matter what the heartthrob factor may be with Obama, he isn't a woman.  Biden has no real appeal with working class women; he is too much of Washington insider/elite.  Palin is a working mother who has achieved great things while having five children, one of whom has Down's Syndrome.  Palin is the role model for how to do it.  Game, set, match, McCain/Palin.

As the governor of Alaska, she can speak the idea of opening ANWR in a way that no one else can.  Maybe, if the McCain camp can get that conversation moved to center-stage, the Obama campaign loses their energy advantage.  Palin's balancing of Alaska's budget and slashing of bureaucratic waste and perks poses a legitimate counterpoint to Obama's utopian promises of tax-and-spend. 

Now, America has a choice between landmark events in our cultural maturation.  Do we elect a president of African heritage who has done nothing except run for office, or do we elect a woman to be 2nd in line who has actually has defined an agenda and achieved it

Certainly, there are challenges ahead.  This is going to change the entire complexion of the election.  Obama/Biden are going to pull off the gloves as their numbers begin to slide; they may even resort to personal attacks against Palin.  Let them come.  I have faith that the American people will know how to vote when they begin to see the true character of the Democratic candidates and machine.

Absolute genius!

Hey! Mainstream media! There's something happening here...

"It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look, what's going down."

This video has already made the rounds but this is an incident that I do not think should fade away. It shouldn't be hard to get the mainstream media to pick it up because it involves on of their own.

According to ABCnews.com, the reporter was investigating the role of lobbyists and top donors to the DNC.

People need to make up the mind about this on their own by watching the video, but if there is not an investigation of the police officers' actions resulting in discipline, I can only conclude that something is terribly broken in our country.