Our Dear Leader Barack Obama

All praises to our dear leader Barack Obama. For by simply electing this messiah to his throne, the ills of the world will cease to be. Israelis and Palestinians will share crumpets and tea with each other, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will dance with our new Secretary of State while Hugo Chavez plays the fiddle, Osama Bin Laden will come out of his tent in Warizistan to turn himself in and Putin will turn Russia into an oasis of love. All by electing Obama can we put this peace on earth. Don't believe me? Just listen to these children, let their infantile minds inspire you to love Obama.




Hmm, sounds familiar.



Update: Apparently they took down the original Obama video, I found a replacement for the time being. If it goes down again, search for it online.

Not Looking Forward to the VP Debate

Palin's second big interview, this time with CBS, wasn't very good. Maybe I should change my opinion again, and say McCain should have picked Pawlenty. Yet again, Pawlenty wouldn't have fired up the base, so there is trade offs for each person.

One thing is for sure, I'm not looking forward to the VP debate. She is going to get squashed. As much as I don't like the Dan Quayle comparisons, I think the debate between her and Biden will resemble Bentsen vs. Quayle in '88. Only I have a feeling she will do worse than Quayle. Luckily, most people on election day vote for the person on the top of the ticket rather than the bottom. We can only hope this year is no different.

Second thoughts?

Paul Newman: 1925-2008

Trailer to my favorite Paul Newman movie.

Debate One

Not that it matters (though I'm sure you'd love to know), my opinion is that McCain won the debate. I thought he was shaky in the beginning on economic issues (though I agreed with everything he said, he didn't necessarily give confidence on the subject), though survived the section fine. On foreign policy, he did great, as was expected. This is his strong suit and he did well. Obama on the other hand, did okay. Whether the American people will be okay with "okay" will soon be reflected in the polls, yet coming in and going toe to toe with McCain will earn him some points with the American public.

McCain had the advantage tonight (minus the beginning), Obama may have to wait till the last debate (economic focus) to see him gain traction against McCain.

Obama on Guns

Obama is no fan of guns. Reason's Jacob Sullum explains.

Although Factcheck.org faults the NRA for distorting Obama's record, every falsifiable claim in its TV spots has a factual basis. In one ad, a Virginia hunter complains that Obama supports "a huge new tax on my guns and ammo," referring to a position Obama took in 1999. He adds that the Illinois senator voted to "ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition," a reference to his 2005 vote for a federal ban on rifle ammunition "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability," phrasing that arguably covered deer-hunting ammunition.

Finally, the hunter complains that Obama wants to ban shotguns and rifles used for hunting, alluding to his support for reinstating the federal "assault weapon" ban. That law arbitrarily prohibited firearms based mainly on cosmetic features that made them look scary to gun-naïve politicians.

If it's an issue that you hold dear, watch out.

Blogroll: Andrew Sullivan No More

I can't even bring myself to read his blog anymore. What an annoying fraud. He is off my list.

Why? Read here.

I'm Barack Obama and I'm a Protectionist

Oh no! Not a Volkswagen! Even worse, A HONDA! There is of course one side effect by Obama running this ad, you'll piss off all those consumers with foreign owned cars. Nothing says "vote for me" like shaming people.

Who Do You Hate? '08

Great, simply great.

The Chavez Standard: Say Nice Things or Get Out

Here's this little gem from Foreign Policy Passport on Hugo Chavez kicking out the Americas director of Human Rights Watch.

Hugo Chávez didn't agree with Human Rights Watch's assessment of Venezuela's fall from democratic ways, released in a 230-page report today. He didn't agree that he has "undermined freedom of expression," or that he has undertaken an "aggressively adversarial approach to local rights advocates."

So, with no apparent sense of irony, he kicked out the Americas director of HRW, José Miguel Vivanco (shown here leaving a press conference in Caracas).

Chavez called the organization a front for the United States, though obviously he must have missed this.

The Chavez Standard.

Update: Here is the report by the way, if you have time (lots of time).

John S. McCain and George W. Bush: Not the Same

One of the most frequent charges against McCain is that he is a Bush clone. That electing John McCain would be another Bush term. Now ignoring that no two Presidents have ever governed exactly the same (due to philosophical differences to changing international issues to whatever else that may come up), this line of attack by the Democratic Party was a given. No matter who won the Republican primary (with the exception of Ron Paul), they would have painted them as another Bush clone. In other words, it's a very unoriginal strategy. Well, John R. Lott Jr., a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, takes a look at this claim of McBush and finds it false.

Does John McCain represent a third Bush term? The Obama campaign claims the two are almost indistinguishable. It was the mantra during the Democratic convention, and it is the theme of new ads Barack Obama is running. The ads claim that McCain is "no maverick when he votes with Bush 90 percent of the time."

This week Obama has begun a constant refrain that there is "not a dime worth of difference" between Bush's and McCain's views. It is a consistent theme of Democratic pundits on talk shows.

Is this the same McCain who drove Republicans nuts on campaign finance, the environment, taxes, torture, immigration and more? Where has McCain not crossed swords with his own party?

As it's being used, the 90 percent figure, from Congressional Quarterly, is nonsensical. As Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman explained, "The vast majority of those votes are procedural, and virtually every member of Congress votes with his or her leadership on procedural motions."

Sounds like the Democratic Party needs a new line of attack, because this one simply isn't true.

Yet let's dig into this even deeper. One common saying is that John McCain isn't the John McCain of 2000 (i.e. to say he was George W. Bush throughout the time afterward). Now ignoring that the John McCain of 2000 might not have been the John McCain of 1996 (or '92, or '89, or '86), this leaves out a little history. In 2004, it was pretty well known that Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry was considering John McCain to be added to his ticket. It would have sent shock waves throughout the political world. Yet to go by the logic of “John McCain 2008 is not the John McCain of 2000”, John Kerry was considering George W. Bush as his running mate (or even better yet, an imposter McCain). I doubt you'll hear that one coming from Kerry's mouth anytime soon.

So let's flesh this out even more, since we can rule out 2000-2004 as years McCain was George W. Bush, let’s look at 2004 to 2008. Yet even between these years proves a difficult representation. John McCain throughout 2007 and in 2008 was running for President, giving him a large leave of absence in regular voting patterns. So that leaves early 2004 to early 2007, which is not a whole lot of time to paint someone as a “clone.” And even in that time, McCain fought against the White House on a number of issues (e.g. Iraq from 2004-2006, environmental issues, detainees). So really the claim that John McCain is George W. Bush is an absurd one. It leaves out a number of important periods in McCain’s Senate career (1986-2000) and glosses over the general friendliness that existed between the Democratic party and John McCain from 2000 to 2004. It leaves out everything that was explained by John R. Lott Jr. in the article above and overall is stupid line of attack. So when you hear someone making this claim of John McCain being another Bush term, you now know they are full of it.

McBush? Not so much.

The Media Attacks: John McCain

Apparently, according to the NY Times, John McCain is not very open these days. Ed Morrissey of Hotair takes us down memory lane.

Let’s take a stroll down Smear Memory Lane, shall we?

* February 21: The Times publishes a story that accuses him of having an affair with a lobbyist — or at least wanting to have an affair with her — based on the word of two disgruntled former staffers, who tell a ridiculous story about confronting McCain without any of his senior advisers ever knowing about it. (I wrote extensively about this at Captain’s Quarters.)

* March 7: Elisabeth Bumiller writes a story about McCain exploding in anger over a question she asked; video later shows she lied.

* March 10: The Times has Dr. Lawrence Altman issue a prognosis on McCain’s skin cancer with the handicap of never having been in his presence. They also criticize him for not releasing his medical records, despite the fact that he did in 1999, and that no other candidate had, either. In fact, Barack Obama still has not released his medical records.

* April 10: Continuing in its tradition of fortunetelling in its news sections, the Times tells its readers that McCain may come under the influence of dreaded neocons. Its source? Another person who doesn’t talk with McCain.

* May 4: The editorial board scolds McCain for not releasing his medical records — even though they note that he planned to do so on May 23rd. To date, they still have not once demanded that Barack Obama release his medical records, nor Joe Biden.

* May 21: After the editorial, the McCain campaign refused to invite a reporter from the Times to the press conference in which McCain would release his records. The Times tell the campaign that they will write a negative story about the records unless they get their invite. I publish the story and ask for a response; the Times refuses to comment.

* May 22, 24: The hit piece comes out, and it’s a weak complaint about the release of the records being “tightly controlled.” In 1999, though, McCain had fewer media outlets and earned the praise of the Times for his openness.

* July 30: The paper that ran the “General Betray-Us” ad scolds McCain for his negative campaigning, failing to mention that Obama actually started running negative ads first.

Oh, the poor media. They just can't get a break covering McCain these days can they?

The Media Attacks: Sarah Palin

I sometimes go to a website called Watching America, it features articles from pundits around the world. More often than not, they have no clue what they are talking about. Most of it is drivel, yet sometimes an article I come across is spot on. It captures the American political scene better than the entire commentary page of the NY Times (though that's not saying much). Today I found one of those articles. Marcin Bosacki explores the witch hunt like atmosphere the media has been having with VP candidate Sarah Palin.

Anyway, we should give credit to American media for giving us more information about the candidate for vice presidency. However, the problem occurs when reporters (not commentators!) start acting as if there was only one just cause to fight for; when they are trying to make Palin look less experienced and more extreme than she really is.

On Thursday night when ABC News broadcast an interview with Palin, several very important Internet websites, including ABC itself and “San Francisco Chronicle”, immediately posted comments such as: “Palin would support war with Russia” (only some added “if Russia attacks”).

The question in fact referred to the defense of Georgia, if it were a NATO member. Palin said, as it is stated in the NATO treaty, that the Allies and the USA should protect Georgia.

Nonetheless, Campbell Brown from CNN instructed Palin with a malicious smile on her face that after Russia attacked Georgia McCain himself rejected the idea of war.

Talk about distortion. The WaPo article is even worse (insinuating that Palin was connecting Iraq today to 9/11). When outright lies are used in titles, you have to think whether or not there is an agenda going on.

For the most part, most of the world's media doesn't have a clue when it comes to American politics, but Marcin Bosacki is spot on.

McCain and Computers: Just Too Painful to Type

McCain, that old fool, he can't even EMAIL OR USE A COMPUTER! My god, the world is over now. Oh wait, what's that? You mean to tell me that the people who worked McCain over at Hanoi Hilton tortured McCain to a point where at his age (i.e. the injuries through time cause greater difficulties later in life) it is just too painful to type? Oh....Wow...now that I know that it doesn't seem as funny as it once did.

...Yeah. Keep laughing Obama, keep laughing.

Update: Another link via Hotair.

God, by reading some of those comments, people really go to far lengths in trying to depict McCain as a liar. "Ah-ha! I saw him use a cell phone! What a liar!" Someone who uses a walker might still be able to walk without it, but it doesn't mean they are faking it when they use it or if someone says "I'm not able to walk." McCain is partially disabled, he has to live with that, while others, who are not in that position, do not.

Then they go one step further and say, "He admits it! ha! Liar!" Which basically neglects McCain's personality, who often is self-deprecating in his humor. Whenever he is in an interview and the topic of age comes up, he fakes like he is falling asleep (which is contrasted with reports of him being really energetic). His comments on his computer abilities reflect that, he is "computer illiterate" a "Neanderthal" etc. When in fact he "uses" a computer with someones help, often his wife.

McCain is a senior, yes, but also a partially disabled one. It's fine to make fun of a candidate for being out of touch (no matter how disingenuous it may be), yet making fun of someone's disability, that is not okay.

A Moment of Silence

For those lost on 9/11.

Food for Thought Two

In 1968, a popular politician ran for President of the United States. He had a large family, 10 children at the time and a pregnant wife at home. That man was Robert F. Kennedy. There was no media outrage.

In 2007, a Labour politician with an one year old child with a disabling disease ran for Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and won. That man was Gordon Brown. There was no media outrage (as far as I know).

Something to think about with the National Enquirer like media frenzy over Sarah Palin.

Sigh of Relief: Palin Not a Super Creationist

So Sarah Palin isn't as scary as some would like us to think.

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution.

"But," he added, "I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

I'm starting to like this Sarah Palin pick more and more.

Update: Speaking of rumors, here is a good debunker list via Hotair.

RNC Convention 2008: Day Four

Here we go.

Mel Martinez speaking. Kind of boring yet straight to the point.

Tim Pawlenty speaking. Using that line "Put Our Country First" way way too much. Otherwise, good speech.

Bill Frist sucks at speaking. Talk about sucking the excitement out of the convention, ha.

Sam Brownback, I like this guy. He has done a lot of work towards human rights around the world, definitely Darfur related stuff. Though his speaking style is similar to Al Gore, which is a drawback. Good speech though.

Though the big screen looks good far away, it really takes away the ability to concentrate on the speaker. I mean, for the convention, I'm sure it looks good, but watching on TV, it looks like a static station.

Boring.

Lindsay Graham speaking. Boring.

Tom Ridge speaking. Good speech. Hell, it's better than Pawlenty's speech. Oh wait, he is using the line "That's John McCain" and the crowd picked it up. Kind of corny there Republicans, ha.

The McCain family is on the stage. Very nice. Looks like Cindy is really trying for that first lady role. Okay. Alright speech, but no Michelle Obama (who really did a good job).

McCain speaks. Great speech. The beginning was a little off because of TWO INTERRUPTIONS by protesters but overall the speech was a success. The ending was really powerful.

Convention wasn't bad, the set could have been better (it was really low key). Yet overall, McCain and Palin made their case and it was a good one. I'm voting for the ticket, hopefully you do too.

RNC Convention 2008: Day Three

Big night. Rudy is keynote. Palin's big speech.

Starting off boring. Crowd seems a little louder than yesterday, we'll see if that lasts.

Waiting for the big speeches.

And the crowd died down.

Meg Whitman speaking. Exciting. Almost as charismatic as Norm Coleman, ha. Looks like the crowd is not paying attention to her, ouch. Yet again, sitting for four to five hours and cheering for every note by every speaker is hard to do. It's hard to blame them.

God, this video on McCain's economic plan seems like it was made in the 70's. The guy narrating it also has that 70's documentary voice. Ha.

Carly Fiorina speaking. Not good with the teleprompter. Otherwise, good speech so far. Wow, did she just say cap and trade at the Republican convention? Wow. I wish the audience was with her more, she is really pouring her heart out.

Michael Steele on stage. Getting the crowd fired up. For awhile at least, ha. He is a very good speaker. His line is "Drill Baby Drill." Yeah, I'm not even going to touch that one. Other than that, best speech of the night (so far).

Mitt Romney speaking. He has the crowd. Good speech I guess, no Bill Clinton (from the DNC convention) though. I'm almost glad McCain didn't pick him. He comes off as really phony sometimes. Yeah, his speech could have been a lot better. He sounded like he was whining a bit.

Huckabee on stage, here comes the charm. Great speech. Huckabee is always a good speaker. A lot better than Romney, who spoke before him(which is kind of funny because apparently they don't like each other much). Probably the best speech of the night (so far).

Gov. of Hawaii Linda Lingle speaking. Kind of boring. Definitely after Huckabee. She ends on a strong note. She mostly made the case for Sarah Palin.

Rudy speaking. Keynote speaker. Putting things into perspective. A lot better keynote than the DNC's Mark Warner. Rudy is playing attack dog. Doing it well I might add. Great speech, he is quite the personality.

Here comes Sarah Palin. Great speech. Best of the convention. She took the "small town mayor" attack to her advantage and turned it around on Barack. Great speech.

McCain joins in. Introduces the ticket to America, great move.

Overall, great third day.

RNC Convention 2008: Day Two

As I did with the DNC convention, I'm going to live blog it. I might not get every hour or every speech being that I have more time restrictions (now that I'm in college). I'll try my best.

Norm Coleman is going to talk. Minnesota talk. Exciting.

Some video about the American flag. Interesting. Now the pledge of allegiance.

It seems there is less people in the crowd than at the DNC convention. Does the Democratic party have more delegates than the Republicans? Hmm.

Boring.

Michelle Bachmann is speaking. She looks way way too phony. Ha. 23 foster children?! Wha? Man, talk about boring (the speech that is). I guess tonight's topic is called "Service" and she is talking at lengths about it. They should have limited the message control and let her tackle energy, which she recently has been very vocal about.

Story about adoption. Cindy McCain related. Touching.

Boring. At least it is somewhat watchable. The DNC convention had some cringe worthy audience responses (i.e. the first two days of the convention). I wonder what the audience reponse will be to Joe Lieberman? We'll see.

The stage is really low tech. Quite the contrast from the the DNC convention. I wonder what the viewer at home thinks about it.

AC/DC playing for intermission music? Awesome.

Boring.

Bush arrives, the first one that is.

First the Teddy Roosevelt tribute, now Abe Lincoln.

I know I said before that the DNC convention was way over the top, but this one seems too scaled back. Odd.

The audience also seems a lot older looking than those in the DNC convention. Interesting. Generational divide?

Boring.

Lots of religious talk. Wooing the social conservative crowd?

More talk of service.

Laura Bush introduces President Bush (Let's keep it short Bush, shall we?).

Bush kept it short and sweet. Nothing that could backfire (or so we can hope?).

Fred Thompson bringing the red meat. Defends Palin, speaks well of McCain (and his military service). Good speech.

Joe Lieberman has arrived. The crowd cheers (if only McCain selected him, ha!). Alright speech. He actually got the words "immigration reform" and the name "Clinton" in without boos. Amazing. Lieberman speaking directly to Democrats and Independents (You speaking to me Joe?) to vote for McCain. I wonder how many people will listen to him.

They are really driving home this "Country First" message.

Well, it's basically over. I would compare this first day (or "second") to that of the first two days of the DNC convention. Toned down (though maybe a little too toned down) and straight to the point. The audience response was similar also (in that they didn't show a lot of energy). We'll see what the next two days bring.