Archive for the 'politics' Category



What Winning At All Cost Says About You

Do you remember when you were a child and your mother or father or other parental figure said, “It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s how you play the game”? I started thinking about that saying within the context of a presidential election, and it made me wonder whether there really was more to winning than just winning.

There was a time when thelogicalreport might have supported John McCain, but that was a very long time ago. Sadly, it’s not just us; there have been many others who have made the disappointing contrast between the John McCain of years past and the John McCain of the 2008 election. For me, the problem with Senator McCain winning the presidency isn’t so much his being the president, for he isn’t a malicious, evil individual. The problem with McCain winning the presidency is the way in which he might win it: through constant, unmitigated, purposeful lies. What’s just as disturbing is that most of the mainstream conservative media have gone happily along with the lies. Here are just a few.

Lie #1: Barack Obama associates with terrorists (and it’s even been intimated that because he associates with them, he is one of them).

Barack Obama does not “associate” with terrorists. If I sit in the cubicle next to someone who committed a crime 40 years ago, and I have lunch with him every day, and I didn’t know that he’d committed a crime 40 years ago, I have news for you: that doesn’t make me a criminal. Even if I did know that he committed a crime 40 years ago, it still doesn’t make me a criminal, and it doesn’t mean that I take my societal cues from criminals. Senator Obama’s actions of service, kindness, and compassion in working for those who are impoverished in the country speak for themselves.

Lie #2: Barack Obama is a Socialist/Marxist. The McCain campaign has been only too happy to take something that is more honorable and honest than anything that George W. Bush has said or done in his entire 8 years and turn it into the number one single on Joe McCarthy’s hit parade. I’m still trying to figure out why so many people are willing to illogically believe that “spreading the wealth around” means Marxism just because an opposing campaign and it’s panicking supporting players in the conservative media say so. It’s a wonderful example of taking something out of context and assigning a false meaning to it. I think that most Americans want the wealth to be spread around and are tired of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of tax-dodging corporations who take advantage of the rest of us daily. Spreading the wealth around, as Obama explains it, means closing corporate tax loopholes and restoring the progressive tax system that was so successful before W lowered the tax rate for the richest among us. That’s it. If that’s Marxism, then those of you who believe it are Fascists.

Lie #3: Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t pretend to know who started this one, but I did hear MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough encourage the lie by not correcting it. And I’m happy to say that I did hear John McCain FINALLY correct the lie—-once, after which time he seemed to have abandoned that particular lie.

Barack Obama is a Christian; we all know it. Obama has said so, and even McCain has said so. He goes to a Christian church–not that it should matter. Why are so many people willing to believe that Muslim means terrorist? Again, is it just because the conservative media says so?

Lie #4: Obama is going to raise your taxes.

McCain says that people earning over $42,000 will have their taxes raised. It’s a lie. Obama has said time and time and time and time again that if you earn under $200,000, you’ll get a tax DECREASE. If you earn over $250,000, your taxes will go back to what they were under Bill Clinton, when we were building up a surplus, that is, he’ll let the temporary tax cuts for the wealthiest among us expire. If you earn between those two amounts, things will stay the same. Tax cuts for 95% of us, and higher taxes for the richest among us? Oh no, he’s a tax and spend liberal!

So, is this how John McCain wants to win the White House? McCain has taken every opportunity to try to win the election by attacking Obama’s character, saying that we can’t trust him, and who IS Barack Obama, and he’s secretive, and he won’t reveal specifics on his policies. But if you lie about someone else’s character, not to mention his policies, in order to win, doesn’t that say everything we need to know about YOUR character? And shouldn’t it send up a red flag to warn us that YOUR policies are not in our best interest?

Is this how John McCain wants to win the presidency? Is he that desperate? Apparently, he knows that his policies favor, once again, the wealthiest among us and so has to deflect attention to lies about Obama’s character.

Attack Senator Obama’s policies; that’s fair game. But don’t lie about his policies and then attack his character for them. Senator McCain, doing so only tells us more about you than we want to know——-especially if you’re elected tomorrow.

Something About Bush…

I’m not a morning person, so I wasn’t very alert when I heard one of the folks on the outstandingly liberal Joe Scarborough show on the overwhelmingly liberal MSNBC (Why does having two truly liberal hours on one 24-hour-per-day network get a network branded as liberal?) when I heard one of the crazy liberal guests say something like There’s something about Bush that’s made people passionate about this election. That’s a paraphrase, not a quote–it was very early to be listening to a lunatic liberal like Joe Scarborough.

That quote got me thinking: What could it have been about Bush that has resulted in such a passionate electorate? It’s clearly something that has just sort of happened, not something that he provoked, right?  That’s clearly what this lunatic liberal was saying.

What could it possibly have been? Just thinking out loud here, but could it have been his politics of division—to the point of firing judges who wouldn’t go along with his partisan fights? No, that couldn’t have been it. Bush is a uniter, not a divider! Could it possibly have been waging an invasion on a country that had nothing to do with an attack on us? No, who would get upset about that? Could it possibly have been forcing deregulation of financial institutions down our throats to the point that we are on the brink of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? No, who cares about whether they can pay their mortgages or retire on time? Could it have been the abandonment of some of our basic rights, such as habeus corpus and the right to have telephone conversations without being spied on by the government? I doubt it—caring about the Constitution is so 1776.

I know what it is—it’s that’s liberal bias of the media.

Media Bias Against McCain

Talk of a media bias against McCain has been all the rage in recent days (here is just one of many links on the topic, from politico.com), and much of the basis of this alleged bias stems from reports that the media has filed unfavorable reports about McCain much more frequently than Obama.

I have no doubt that these statisitics are true. The media, however, has no responsibility to balance coverage of candidates based on whether they each receive the same number of negative and positve reports. It has the responsibility to accurately report what is going on, and based on that, it’s clear why McCain is receiving more negative reports–he and his campaign are almost exclusively focusing on the negative.

When McCain and Palin spend an entire day of campaigning saying that Obama is a socialist or that he hangs around with terrorists or that he lacks experience or that he, in combination with Pelosi, are “dangerous,” what are reporters supposed to report? Are they supposed to report that McCain has a great plan to save the economy? Are they supposed to report that Sarah Palin has a spectacular new plan to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? Of course not; the reporters are going to report on how McCain is attacking Obama, which is then viewed as a negative report.

If McCain wants some positive press, then he should try focusing on something positive.

Senator Ted Stevens, Covicted Felons, and Voting

Senator Ted Stevens, senior republican from Alaska, has been found guilty on all corruption charges and could go to prison for five years. Meanwhile, from what I’ve read, he’s still running for re-election. Oh, and he doesn’t have to give up his current Senate seat. (I know that the election is next week, but it’s the principle here that I’m after; even if this had happened a year ago, he would not have had to leave the Senate.)

Soooooooooooo, let me get this straight: If you’re a convicted felon in this country, you can’t vote…………..But you can still serve as a United States senator. Hmmmmmmmm.

If Mr. Average American commits a felonious crime against society, he forfeits his right to vote in an election. A United States senator, on the other hand, who commits the same felonious crime against society can remain a United States senator. Does that mean that he can vote, too? Will Stevens be able to vote? Will he be able to vote for president? Will he at least be able to vote for himself? And if he does, and if he wins, then will he serve as senator while he’s serving as Prisoner #490580149240385089348098403218340?

The Congress does have the power to expel Senator Stevens, but it has to vote on it, and a two-thirds majority is needed. I wonder if we could all get together and vote on whether non-congressional convicted felons should be given the right to vote; to be fair, passage could require a two-thirds majority.

Representative Murtha is Right

We at TheLogicalReport.com believe in honesty, and it is with great sadness that we must say, that we feel that Representative Murtha of Pennsylvania is correct when he says that voters in western Pennsylvania are racist.

We’re not reporting this with glee or as a way to further separate Democrats from Republicans or as a way to explain votes that Obama doesn’t get; we’re saying it based on personal experience. We have ties to western Pennsylvania,  specifically west-central Pennsylvania (the area that Murtha represents), and we’ve spent time there. There is plenty of racism there. It’s not typically blatant, mean-spirited, put on the white sheets racism, but it’s an insidious lack of trust and dislike of those who are not in the majority.

Racism has been a serious problem in this country since its inception, and thankfully, it’s not as much of a problem in a large part of the country now. Lack of diversity in areas such as west-central Pennsylvania, though, which have largely remained homogonous (composed mainly of white Christians) means that the progress toward a more accepting society is slower there. I never condone racism, and I’m not making excuses for it; however, it’s logical to expect that this would be the case.

Many people in west-central Pennsylvania have had absolutely no life experiences (work, school, play, dating, bingo) with African Americans or Hispanic Americans or Jewish Americans or anyone who isn’t a white Christian—or, for that matter, openly homosexual men and women. I know that this might be hard to believe, but it’s true.

This lack of diversity means that racism handed down from generation to generation takes longer to dilute than when people are able to learn through their own experiences that the stereotypes aren’t true. Knowing people is understanding them—and loving them—and that doesn’t happen much in Murtha’s district. This segment of the population (and it’s not everyone) is much more likely to vote for a white Christian than an part-African American Christian, especially when there are lies being spread that he might be a Muslim.

By the way, thinking that someone might be dangerous because he’s a Muslim is also racism.

Liberals Hate Americans? Oh, I Thought They WERE Americans!

 

Representative Robin Hayes (R-North Carolina) said on Saturday that liberals hate Americans who work hard and believe in God.

Why has the republican party become the party of hatred? Why do they find it necessary to spread divisiveness among the people they are supposedly representing and supporting? And why do they find it necessary to lie to “their” Americans? Liberals hate real Americans? Oh, really? It is these hateful liberals who have always advocated for social programs and a higher minimum wage that, incidentally, help the poor, who, incidentally, are the ones bashing the liberals for hating Americans. These hateful liberals are also the ones who always advocate for small businesses that belong to REAL AMERICANS even though these REAL AMERICANS are all, according to Hayes, republican.

Hayes has accused Barack Obama of inciting class warfare. This reminds me of my post from yesterday (Ramblings on Palin’s Real America...), in which I talked about President Bush always saying the opposite of what he really thinks and is doing. It is actually the republican party that has declared class warfare: they have given huge tax cuts to large AMERICAN corporations while letting the rest of us fend for ourselves and expecting us to be grateful for a 600- or 1200-dollar tax rebate, supported tax loopholes for AMERICAN companies who incorporate overseas, threatened to privatize Social Security so that all of us AMERICANS are dependent on the “free (hah!) market, cut social programs for AMERICANS, reduced funds to mandated programs for poor AMERICANS, reduce funding to Medicare and Medicaid for AMERICANS, have fought against raising the minimum wage for AMERICANS, and changed bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for AMERICANS.

I also find it interesting that Hayes and others would encourage the hatred of one neighbor for another neighbor, especially by invoking God. Isn’t the message of Jesus Christ one of love for one’s fellow man? No? Well, I wasn’t aware that Jesus’ message was one of such evil, violence, and hatred. I’m sure that many REAL Christians would be appalled to hear Hayes’ Nazi-speak, for anyone who could purposely try to divide the citizens of this country by encouraging them to hate one another is not a REAL Christian.

Liberals hate Americans who work hard and believe in God? I have news for you, Robin:  Liberals ARE Americans who work hard and, for those who choose to, believe in God. Do you?

Ramblings on Palin’s Real America and Us Versus Them

 In 2001, President George Bush, in regard to the so-called war on terror, said, “You’re either with us or you’re against us…,” laying the groundwork for a cultural divisiveness that has become larger than any sense of country that we all share as Americans. And what’s most frightening is that the “you’re either with us or against us” mind set has become the norm rather than the anomolous, embarrassing, temporary blot on our collective soul that it should be. Now, the McCain campaign is carrying the torch, perhaps all the way to the next White House.

 Bush’s words encouraged us to judge one another’s motives and allegiances, for, after all, if we didn’t agree with the commander in chief, then we were being unpatriotic. If we didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with September 11 or any other terrorism threat at the time, then we were unpatriotic. If we didn’t rush to thrust the youngest and bravest of us into the line of firearms and bombs and beheadings in that sovereign nation, then we were not supporting those youngest and bravest of us——those troops—-and we were being unpatriotic. If we didn’t support tax cuts for the wealthiest among us in a time of war so that the rest of us could, once again, have the financial proof that trickle-down economics does not work, then we were unpatriotic.

And so it has continued for the past 7 years, from illegal wiretapping and spying on you and me in our telephone conversations and e-mails to firing government officials who refused to randomly investigate only Democrats for voter fraud that wasn’t voter fraud to snubbing anyone whose first language was not English. Our government has continued to foster an “us versus them” perspective.

The McCain/Palin campaign is now continuing to encourage that divisive, incendiary, destructive train of thought. In one of her latest campaign speeches, Palin spoke of small-town America as the “real” America, once again trying to divide our country into those who are patriotic, that is, those who agree with the McCain/Palin vision for this country, and those who are not patriotic, that is, those whose vision for this country does not include privatizing Social Security, taxing us on our employer-offered health benefits, and providing Socialist welfare to corporate America.

When George Bush did it, I dismissed it as “well, it’s George Bush.” I, as well as so many other Americans, came to view whatever Mr. Bush said as the opposite of what was really going on in his mind and behind our backs——–and he never disappointed me. When he said that he was a uniter, it turned out that he was a divider. When he said that wiretapping was always done with a warrant, it turned out that he was spying on Joe six-pack without warrants. And when he pressed on with his “us versus them” idea, it was just another day at the office. Maybe he was using the old divide and conquer routine.

Is that what Senator McCain and Governor Palin are trying to do now, divide and conquer? That sort of tactic can be successful if executed properly, with a surgeon’s precision and an Olympian’s skill. George Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney have that skill and that precision. The proof is in the state our poltical discourse. They laid a solid foundation for the Republican candidate. But is that the kind of country we want?  Do we really want it to be you’re either with us or you’re against us? Isn’t anyone else tired of the “I’m right, and you’re wrong—and un-American” line? Do we want our leaders to encourage a distrust, a sort of neighbor-versus-neighbor kind of America? 

It sort of reminds me of the Civil War.