Sarah Palin, the 3rd grader's choice.

Am....I....the...only...person...who...realizes...that.....Sarah Palin.....talks in sentence...fragments?

I am awaiting the official transcript, it should be good. When asked about the bailout, she starts rambling on about health care.

Then at the debates, when asked about nuclear weapons, she strung together approximately four different theses in one painful upchuck of words.

It is no surprise to me that this woman failed out of four, count 'em, four colleges before finally getting a degree. Talking to Sarah Palin must be like visiting a classroom of eighth graders.

I don't mean to be hurtful or mean, but someone has to say it.

Our current president rambles off to faraway lands of verbs and nouns, present tense and past tense, sanity and sheer lunacy. To think that the colossal failure of simple communication that is Sarah Palin could at one point lead our nation scares me to death. Imagine a world where our potential leader-in-waiting's breadth of experience in foreign policy consists of "trade missions" and the ability to see Russia from her "backyard."

At what point will people really begin to realize what Palin is all about?
All she did in the debate was drop buzzwords and phrases like "economic growth," "maverick," and name-drop "Ahmadinejad" about 7 trillion times. Are we supposed to be impressed? Is it really enough that you've been cramming for the last 72 hours? How many times do you think they had to quiz her on that? Not just the pronunciation, but where he's from, what religion he subscribes to, some "evil" phrases that he's said, and maybe some catchy phrase like "he hates golden retrievers, just like Senator Obama and Senator Biden."

It's really like pitting James Carville against a high school debate team.

Watch Palin stumble and bumble her way to a nonsensical answer"

Ctizenship, a Novel Concept

I have recently noticed a phenomenon that I find to be totally interesting and inspiring.

When I was at my local supermarket yesterday, I decided to start the air-conditioning in my car while loading my groceries to keep them from instantaneously melting in the ninety plus degree heat. When I was done loading them up, I realized that the parking lot had no repository for empty shopping carts. At this point I had a decision to make. I could leave my cart in the parking lot, thereby ensuring that an employee would have to retrieve it later, and drive off in my nice cool car. Or, I could do the polite thing and return it to the store. It turned out that an employee of the store was already in the parking lot, so I gave my cart to him, for which he showed genuine gratitude.

This may not seem all that ground-breaking, but for me it was a semi-epiphany. I realized that the reason I chose the more courteous route was because I was aware that an elderly woman had just glanced at my four Obama bumper stickers. I didn't realize it at the time, but my actions were shaped by the fact that I was essentially a surrogate for Barack Obama's campaign. I know that sounds completely idealistic and probably makes Bill O'Reilly want to throw up, but to me it's pretty cool.

The fact that my desire to demonstrate my support for Barack Obama led me to make the friendlier, more courteous decision, says a great deal about the dynamic of his campaign. I am not going to say that by electing Senator Obama, we will immediately solve all of the world's problems, but what I will steadfastly support is the sense of community that he speaks of and strives to engender.

To think that a political candidate inspires greatness just by virtue of his campaign is quite the accomplishment. I find myself wondering why anyone would be skeptical of a candidate who has made a significat impact, simply by running for president. To me, if Barack Obama can inspire kindness and keen sense of civic duty in me, the potential for nation-wide kindness and community is enormous.

Think about it. People recall with great fondness the sense of solidarity and compassion for their fellow citizens that the nation experienced with the second World War. We didn't hesitate to help those less fortunate than us. We were America. We were a nation united against an evil front. We didn't need Nazism or Communism, we had America. We had the promise and zeal that came from our unilateral commitment to democracy. People in times past realized that we are first and foremost humans, and by reasons beyond our control, countrymen.

Is it then a bizarre desire to long for the same sense of community that we once had? Is being friendly and neighborly that foreign of a concept that we write it off as idealistic? It is alarming to me the negative characterizations that Barack Obama has faced for suggesting that we re-examine the way we treat each other. It's absolutely insane to call a man "unrealisitc" or "idealistic" because he wants us to start treating our neighbors as family.

Do we really only resort to kindness when all other options have been exhausted? It should not take another World War to return America to a friendly place. I have a humble suggestion. Give kindness a chance. Next time you see someone you don't know, smile at them. Ask people how they are doing, and care about the answer. Courtesy should not be something we do when on the clock, it should be something that we do without ulterior motivation.

I realize I sound like an "idealist". That's because I am. The thing that people miss is that my optimism is not hopeless or unattainable. It is not unrealistic. We can very simply become a prosperous nation again. Sometimes all it takes is a little compassion for your fellow man.

It's a novel concept. One that I enjoy.

Experience

I am confronted with the battle over experience all of the time.

How could a junior senator like Barack Obama really know enough about the government to be able to be president?

People have come to equate the amount of time that a politician has been in office with his or her ability to lead. In essence, we find experience to be preferential to education or intelligence. When a senator has served for many years, he takes on a certain tenure. Politics becomes a thing very much reminiscent of a John Grisham novel. I am completely convinced that all sorts of deals and secret arrangements occur on Capitol Hill all of the time. Politics has evolved to a skull and crossbones good ol' boys club.

And why not? Being a senator is highly profitable. You can earn money and pension by working hard in a factory for years on end, but the easier route is to become a senator.

Senators are paid $162,100 per year and are eligible for lifetime retirement after as little as 5 years in office. Health benefits are available immediately and are life-long. The average senator spends his time attending parties and benefits and fund raisers. A small amount of time is dedicated to actually participating in the senate. Senators eventually become professional politicians, their lifestyle above and beyond what most people encounter. How many Americans travel by "driver" and have an assistant to take notes and run errands at every whim?

People who have been in government for a while have become completely out of touch with their constituencies. The interest, instead of the welfare of their electorate, becomes how to make the most money while still getting reelected. Politicians forget the times when they had to work forty hours a week.

While the average American makes $26,036 a year, politicians make over SIX TIMES that much! When was the last time that people making $26k and $162k had a lot on common? In my opinion, the longer a politician works in Washington, the more out of touch he becomes.

Hillary Clinton didn't know what Red Bull was.

John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer.

How then, can these people claim to know or even relate to the problems of the middle class? I think that the answer may be to elect people who, until recently, were not so different from us.

I like the candidate who only recently paid off his school loans, not one who has untold millions.

I find that people who have actually lived in the middle class actually know what's best for it, not people who can "imagine" struggling. It is not enough to envision the plight of Americans, we must elect someone who has been there. I don't need experience. I don't need someone who hasn't stepped foot in a McDonald's in 30 years. I don't need a candidate who can't even figure out Hotmail. I don't need a candidate who continually hits his senile head on car doors.

Vote with your brain, not your eyes.

I should preface this by pointing out that the county in which I live, Indian River County, is predominantly elderly and, consequently, largely republican. For every democrat, there are 1.6 republicans. I was at a local business the other day, and the man behind the counter lamented that it was getting harder and harder to collect money for outstanding invoices. I sympathized with him, citing that most of us are in tough economic times. I said I wouldn't get into the politics of the economy because I know that I am in the minority in my county.

His response?

"I'll tell you one thing, that old boy gets into office, some old country boy gonna take care of him."

Let's break that down. What he meant was:

"If Barack Obama is elected, he will be assassinated."

As harmless as this may sound to some, I have a big problem with it.

Every time I hear someone say that, it sounds to me like people are trying to dissuade me from voting for him. In other words, "why would you vote for him, someone's just going to assassinate him anyway." It's essentially an acceptance of our collective racism. To me it implies a conspiratorial vibe. As in "some old country boy, like me, will 'take care' of him."

People who did not, in some way, share that racial motivation would refer to it as assassination, not "taking care of him."

Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but it's usually accompanied with a knowing look, as if to say, "you're with me, right?"

I just don't understand why we, as a nation, can't come together and forget that the best qualified candidate is a black man. The economy does not rise or fall according to the color of the president's skin. Our global success won't depend on how light or dark our president's skin is.

To be accurate, I'm not imagining racism, some Americans openly admit that they will never vote for a black man. To these people I say, DON'T BREED.

To vote for someone because he is the white candidate is ludicrous. The white candidate doesn't have any good plans for our nation. He's an old, senile, angry man, and has no business making decisions for Americans.

It's the economy, stupid.

I'll make it quick, it's just a rant. I don't understand anyone who thinks that the Iraq war is going well. The timing of the war and our clear recession (yes, recession) is the 531+ billion pound gorilla in the room.

It's very simple. We had a budget surplus. We then decided to make tax cuts. Then we attacked Iraq.

Now the economy sucks.

How then, can we expect something new by doing the same thing? In the words of the great Rich Dickerson, isn't doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results the first sign of insanity?

John McCain can't offer any new ideas other than cutting taxes and continuing to perpetrate an utterly failed war.

Let's try something new.

barackobama.com

Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing

I just got done perusing the section of John McCain's website dedicated to the economy. It sounds great:

• Make gas cheaper
• Make gas cheaper
• Make gas cheaper
• Save mortgages

Wow! I want cheap gas!

What is John McCain's plan for this? I'm supposed to say something witty here, but there's nothing to say. The problem is, he doesn't have any actual viable solutions for making gas cheaper. If you read his site, you get the impression that being the president gives you a magic wand to cast spells on OPEC. Unfortunately, some people are actually buying it.

I understand the willingness to succumb to a hope that a candidate can magically accomplish things, I really do. But I've never seen a more obvious attempt at pandering in my entire life.

The painful reality of John McCain's economic plan is that he has no idea how to pay for anything. His website says the following (I've made all quotes red, sort of like the Unites States' check register):

John McCain Will Help Americans Hurting From High Gasoline And Food Costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices.

That sounds great but, how? How are we, who have a flagging dollar, supposed to make this reduction in gas prices. Better yet, how do YOU, John McCain, plan on making that happen?

From his site:

John McCain Will Stop Filling The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To Reduce Demand. International demand for oil is bolstered by federal purchases for the SPR. There is no reason to fill it when oil is so expensive; the overall SPR is of adequate size, and when it places further upward pressure on prices.

So what he is saying is, we are already at the mercy of countries that hate us, but we should stop stockpiling reserves. What happens in a real war? What happens if OPEC finally decides to really start price gouging? Then we are at the complete mercy of their whims. I am by no means a protectionist, but I am also pessimistic about our relations with the largest oil producing countries.

By stopping the filling of our reserves, McCain's plan serves to increase our potential reliance on foreign oil. It is a classic pandering band-aid plan. Its sole purpose is to win an election. If we are to reduce gas prices, we must reduce demand, which will succeed in giving us more bargaining power.

McCain also proposes a "gas tax holiday" which is another shiny gimmick to get votes, but will do more harm than good according to every major economist in America. It's like giving away a free toaster with the purchase of a Mercedes Benz, it's a crude ruse to get your vote.

Check it out here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3038243520080430


John McCain has even more plans to get votes:

John McCain Is Proposing A New "HOME Plan" To Provide Robust, Timely And Targeted Help To Those Hurt By The Housing Crisis. Under his HOME Plan, every deserving American family or homeowner will be afforded the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home's market value.

So we're going to save families' homes by bailing them out with federal funding. It sounds great. How does John McCain plan on paying for it? This genius idea:

John McCain Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) – a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under McCain's plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 – a real tax cut for working families.

I'm confused. We're going to keep Bush's tax cuts, eliminate the AMT, and lower coprorate taxes by 10%, right? So now the question becomes, where does McCain plan on getting the money to bail out homeowners? Better yet, where does McCain plan on getting funding for the military to keep us in Iraq for 5-100 years?

Cutting taxes sounds great to the average American, but what's the point of having a little more coin in your pocket if the dollar isn't worth anything? Is it worth sacrificing our education, roads, and military just to save the middle class a small amount? The lost benefit to the nation as a whole far outweighs the immediate benefit to the middle class. Simply put, I'd rather pay a little more in taxes in exchange for armed forces that are actually properly equipped.

All that John McCain proposes to do is spend money and cut taxes. I have a news flash, you plunge us into ever increasing national debt by continuing to spend without paying for it. It's no wonder that our nation is credit-sick, our government leads the way!


















We have soldiers in Iraq with no body armor, and John McCain wants to cut taxes? We are trying teach our citizens to be credit-smart.....by raising the national debt? It just doesn't make any sense. John McCain has a bunch of great-sounding ideas, but no concrete way of making them come true. He's like a 15 year old with an American Express. He wants to spend with no plan on paying it back.

How about being fiscally responsible for once? If we can't afford a war, get out of it! McCain calls Obama a "tax and spender." I'd rather have a "tax and spender" than a "spend and spend and spender."

No Country For Old Men

I realize that it has been a while since I entertained the masses with a post, and I apologize for the delay. I have been waiting, like everyone else, to see what Hillary would do. Now that she's out of the race, I have decided to write about the upcoming general election.

I meet people every day who do not "like" Barack Obama. Some don't like him for specific reasons, others just harbor a suspicion about him that they cannot explain. I cannot, however, find a single person who is excited about McCain as a candidate. Even the conservative radio hosts don't have much love for him. Doesn't anyone see how preposterous it is to vote for a man that you do not like, based solely on the fact that he represents "your" party? For years now, McCain has been a thorn in the side of republicans. He has been a republican (in name only) who has espoused more liberal ideals than any other republican.

It is only now, because he is the republican candidate, that McCain is changing his stances on issues in order to appeal to voters. McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."
Now, McCain wholeheartedly supports these tax cuts, saying that they help America.

Which is it? Are the Bush tax cuts good or bad? I guess it depends on whether or not you have to answer a constituency or are instead trying to appeal to a republican ideal. Along the same lines, McCain voted against repealing the estate tax, but now he wants to keep the elimination permanent. Again, how can you vote against something but then say that you support it?

Now, McCain is talking about cutting the corporate tax rate by 10%. I must be missing something here but, how can we continue to cut taxes and still be able to afford anything? I mean, taxes are not just to bloat government, they're to build schools, maintain roads, and support our military. It's funny that a man who is adamantly pro-war in Iraq and Iran wants to cut taxes, thereby reducing our tax revenue and, consequently, the amount of money we can use for national security.

Where does John McCain think that the $527 billion we have spent in Iraq comes from?

So, you have a man who doesn't understand economics, but purports to have a firm grasp on national security and foreign policy. Does being a prisoner of war somehow qualify you to be the commander in chief? Does being held captive translate into good foreign policy? The man is a powder keg, ready to explode into rage at any time. Do we as Americans really want a loose cannon in office AGAIN?

John McCain's understanding of foreign policy is apparently that we should joke around about bombing countries, or that we should be in Iraq for 100 years. Maybe that is the foreign policy of the republican party, but I doubt it. He criticizes Obama for proposing to meet with foreign leaders "without conditions," but what exactly is the problem with that? According to John McCain, we should continue to ignore the countries who don't like us, and be increasingly exclusionary. To me, that sounds like terrible foreign policy.

How many people really think that a 70 year old man can revitalize America's global image? It's time for us to wake up! This pattern of electing old cantankerous men needs to come to an end. People look at elderly people and they see wisdom, but anyone can tell you that elderly people also resist change, regardless of its potential benefit. Older people cling to old ideals, some of which are outdated and must change. Our ideals in America have been to do whatever we want and not face any consequences. We are reaping what we have sown. All it takes is the ability to say, "I will not vote a party line simply because my father does." It is time to critically analyze who can best reshape how the world views the US. It's time to say that it's ok to vote across party lines if that is what it takes to give us the much needed shot in the arm that we so desperately require.

I implore everyone to look closely at McCain and Obama. What will you see in McCain that you like? I can see nothing. Being a prisoner of war and an old man do not qualify you to run the country. It's time for radical change, not stagnant policies.