Archive Page 2

Why John McCain Lost

There is one reason for John McCain having lost the 2008 presidential election—John McCain. It’s not more complicated than that. I could end the post here, but since so many people seem to fail to grasp that basic logic, I will explain.

John McCain did not lose because he ran too many negative ads, nor did he lose because he spread too many (or too few) lies about Barack Obama. John McCain did not lose because he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. He did not lose because of a media bias in favor of Barack Obama. He did not lose because of George Bush. He did not lose the election because he leaned too far to the right or because he drifted too far to the center. He didn’t lose because he was too angry.

All of those were merely distractions intended to hide the fact that John McCain did not support policies that Americans wanted. Americans are not interested in eight more years of needless wars, failed economic philosophies, violation of American rights, and so on.

John McCain lost because of John McCain.

Advertisements

Does Anyone Really Care About the Chief of Staff?

For those of you who are Republican, some of your political brethran are making themselves look bitter, ridiculous, and horribly partisan. They’re already trying to undermine and criticize President-elect Obama, thus trying to give the conservative mainstream media political machine an early start to their lies and spin.

Rahm Emanuel is said to have been chosen as Obama’s chief of staff, so John Boehner is already calling foul on Obama’s statement that he’d change the way things are done in Washington. Are you kidding me? Emanuel is known for getting things done. These republicans say that he’s partisan. Oh, really? Here’s a little bit of information: Obama is a DEMOCRAT, and he’s going to choose a lot of DEMOCRATS for his staff and cabinet. He will also choose Republicans, but it sounds as if these Republicans are trying to convince us that Obama is already lying to us because he’s not choosing all right wingers. (I wonder if they’d feel the same way about a John McCain staff choice.) I guess there are some Republicans who don’t like someone who is a straight shooter and can’t be intimidated; it makes it a lot more difficult for the conservatives to lie and spin.

What’s funny about it is that most of us don’t even KNOW what the chief of staff does, and we don’t know the name of Bush’s chief of staff, and, frankly, we don’t care.

If the situation were reversed, the media wouldn’t even be reporting on this piece of insanity. They know that no one cares; they’re just going to dissect every move Obama makes in order to try to turn the public against him. Good luck with that.

Sarah Palin: Fiscal Conservative?

While John Edwards was happily attacked in the mainstream conservative media for getting a 400-dollar haircut when he was running for President, Sarah Palin’s 150,000-dollar shopping spree while on the campaign trail was brushed over by the same media.

It was, indeed, reported that Palin spent tens of thousands of dollars on a make-up artist, a hairstylist, and clothing while campaigning with John McCain, but from what I saw, there was never the “you ought to be ashamed for spending such a gluttonous amount of money on yourself while you PRETEND to care about people who can’t even afford a flobee and a pair of shoes from Goodwill” scolding that was mockingly heaped on Edwards. Now, Newsweek reports that Palin’s shopping spree was even worse than originally leaked. She had other members of the campaign put some of her purchases on their credit cards. Do you think that perhaps she was trying to hide some of the expenses so that she wouldn’t be found out for what she really is? Just asking. Here’s the story in the Alaska Dispatch, which has a link to the full story in Newsweek.

I guess Palin is one of the growing members of the fiscal conservatives who are conservative with how they spend only their OWN money, not anyone else’s. I wonder if this 150,000-plus-dollar spending spree says as much as Palin and who she really is as Edward’s 400-dollar haircut said about him. Hmmmmm.

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.