Political Views Have Gotten Nasty and Divisive.

Politics has gotten nasty.  It has turned family against family and friend against friend.  It is turning neighbor against neighbor.  Citizens have a certain dividing line and they have staked out their claim.  They feel they are not only righteous, but that the "other side" is not only wrong but that they are either evil or they are feable and a product of too much "kool aid".

I have a reasonably high IQ (155).  I'm not an elitist and often learn from people I read about or that I talk with that I know have an IQ lower than mine.  Having a high IQ doesn't make a person better than anyone else.  It does allow a person to make evaluations and judgements that are clearer (although a person with a lower IQ has no way to know when they're wrong) and of course, the guy that has the higher IQ isn't always right.  Sometimes the other guy is right.

Now that's out of the way, I have noticed that lately I am having to almost laugh in silence, for being told by people that have a lower IQ than me, that I am feable, stupid, uninformed, etc, etc, etc.  I'm told this because I don't agree with them.

I have been told twice this week that I was a "kool aid" drinker and that I didn't have my facts straight.

Consider that I read all the time (not just in election years) and that I read from different sources (not just those that I agree with all the time)(and I don't even have Fox News on my satellite television line-up).  So I get my news from various sources, and the another guy gets his from NPR; and somehow he's right and I'm wrong.

And although I read all the time and am keeping in touch with what's going on even when it's not an election year; whereas another guy has only started reading about these issues in the last six months, he's somehow more informed than me and that I'm a product of the right-wing conspiracy propaganda machine.

Wow!

And for the record, once again, although this guy doesn't know it (yet), he was wrong and I was right.  I looked up our disputed facts from a number of sources.  So it seems that he's been drinking the "kool aid" and didn't even realize it.  He'll never admit it though, and that's my concern.

No matter how this election plays out, citizens are increasingly choosing sides for more than just who they'll vote for or what they're voting for.  Now people are choosing sides; and the other side is the enemy.

When I was growing up, I often heard the phrase, "I might not believe what you believe, but I will fight for your right to say what you believe".  Well, I haven't heard that phrase since the late 1980s.  No one seems to care about freedom of speech and thought, unless of course, it agrees with their own.

My personal opinion is that no matter which party gets in office, the country will survive.  We've survived over 200 years and I think we can survive 4 years of Obama or of McCain.  What I think dooms us more than 4 (or even 8) years of either of these choices, is that political thought has become so divisive and the hatred grows.  It is an uncomfortable feeling to be in a room with people that you like, but that you disagree with politically.

I do have to laugh about being told that I'm a kool aid drinker.  The truth is, I've known I was smart most of my life, but since I wasn't a part of the "in-crowd" or otherwise popular kids, I was told that I wasn't as good as the others.  It has been this way most of my life so I don't really let that bother me.  I was shocked, however, to be attacked personally by someone that is supposed to be a friend of mine.

Since when did a personal view on whether or not we pay this tax rate or that tax rate, suddenly make a friend turn against a friend?  (I'm paying 40% in tax now and don't really want to pay any more; if anything, I should be the one getting angry, not the other guy).

What has made people so divided that they hate their friends and hate their own family?

I know the answer.  I'm just venting out of frustration, because I have no one to talk to about this.  The truth is, people are frustrated (on the left and on the right).  They feel that their government (who is supposed to be working for them) has abandoned them instead; and that when questioned about it, lies to them.  So people are frustrated and they have an emotional attachment to their own political views.  At this point, facts don't mean anything.  A fact that doesn't line up with a person's thinking is going to just anger them and make them hate the other side even more.  And there are loads of opinions published on the internet (in the form of blogs) that will line up exactly with their political viewpoints, and feed them whatever facts they want to hear, even if it's a lie.

So I look at this and feel that this is what is going to be the downfall of the nation.  It wont be which party is in charge or which person is elected President of the United States.  It will be that people are just so frustrated and at the same time, are letting emotion lead them into a hateful stance against anyone that disagrees with them; and of course, the politicians love this because it leaves them with no accountability.  This is better than having a war (an enemy) to fight.  Even if the war ends, there's always going to be a war at home to fight; and that will keep people's eyes off the people they're paying to fix our economy, our government, our roads, our bridges, our schools, etc, etc, etc.

McCain's Nomination Speech

I watched McCain's nomination speech lastnight; all of it.  It was long and mostly boring.  There were a few moments during the speech, but it was mainly preaching to the audience he had there.   He could've easily cut the speech in half and been just as affective.

The first half of the speech seemed mostly the kind of rhetoric that all politicians say.  Vote for me and I'll do these things.  It's what conservatives wanted to hear.  They cheered.  However, they didn't cheer when he pointed the fingers at corruption, and sometimes regarding those in the Republican party.  They didn't really cheer for that.

The audience didn't cheer when he said that they need to put party politics aside and not worry about who gets the credit for fixing something; and just work together and share the credit.

McCain put country above party.  That was good.  There was a clear distinction and a record to support that notion.  There's nothing like that from Obama, and so in that respect, I have more confidence that he will do what he thinks is right for the country, versus trying to do things as a strict conservative Republican would expect them to be done.  He said several times that he wouldn't play party politics and I believe him.

I thought it was good that he said that he'd have democrats and independents in his cabinet.  There weren't many cheers from the audience on that one; and this morning, conservative talk radio were blasting the man for that portion of the speech.

They have a point on one side; Obama would never have a republican on his cabinet.  They aren't likely to reach across the aisle for anything.  Every time I've seen a democrat talk about putting party aside, they always expect the republican to vote with the democrats.

So I see their point.  However, this position of President of the United States isn't about party.  It's about getting things done and about working for the people of the country, not for the party and not for special interests.  So what McCain is saying makes more sense to achieve those goals than in making talk radio conservatives happy.

McCain's speech wasn't nearly as inspiring as Obama's, but McCain isn't as eloquent a speaker.  He admits that.  Palin was much more interesting to listen to.  However, the guts of what McCain was saying, was inspiring, and it's what Americans want to hear.  And he has the history to prove that he's not just saying it; but that he lives it.

I'll be interested to see how the debates go.

Playing the Fear Card

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country...Herman Goering

The left points to this quote from an infamous nazi, to suggest that this is all we're seeing now.  They have no answer to the fact that McCain is obviously more qualified to be in command in chief.

The left can discount McCain with this quote if they want, but they're running from reality.  Just because you can manipulate people with fear, doesn't mean that there isn't anything out there to be afraid of.  And it's not like the left aren't playing the fear card.  They are telling the elderly that they're going to be thrown out into the street if McCain is elected.  They're telling mothers that McCain is going to send their sons off to war.  They are telling the poor that they will starve to death of McCain is elected.

It seems to me that Goering was right, but I think that the wrong people need to be quoting Goering.  It's the level-headed Americans that need to be reminding people who is playing the fear card.  The terrorists are real.  They want to kill us.  They have killed people in other countries since 9/11/2001.  Those people would be killing Americans on US soil if they could.  Reminding people of this is not playing the fear card any more than what Obama is doing with his issues.

If you honestly do not believe that there are enemies out there, then might I suggest that you have no need of locks on the doors of your house; and that we have no need of a police force to protect our homes.  Do you really believe that?  Would you really want a mayor that told you it was all a myth and that your homes are only in danger because of the previous mayor?  Would you really want a mayor that wanted to cut the police force?  Would you really feel safer?

Impressions of Palin

Sarah Palin was announced as the republican candidate for vice president a few days ago.  I had read about her a few times over the past few months, not knowing that she'd ever be on the radar for consideration as vice president.  When I heard who the pick was, however, I was delighted.  From what I know of her record, she's an excellent choice.  However, I have a few concerns, and so far, only a few have been put at ease.

I listened to the rhetoric from the left, as far as her not being qualified.  And of course, she's more experienced than Barak Obama, but that doesn't enter their logic.  Comparisons have been made with the governor of Virginia who Obama had on the short list for vp.  At the time, Republicans suggested that he wasn't experienced enough, and so they (the left) make this same comparison with Palin.  However, they aren't comparing apples to apples.  The fact is that Palin has accomplished a lot more during her time as governor of Alaska.  In addition, she was governor of an energy producing state, and a state with quite a bit more natural resources to manage.

Palin took on the big money interests and beat them, even with them vastly out spending her.  She took on corruption in her own party, even with a sitting governor of her own party.  She stood up to big oil a number of times as governor.

All this said, the governor of Viriginia is hardly as qualified for an executive position as Palin.  The left don't see this because they don't want to see this.  However, if she were a democrat, it would be different.

I liked her speech on Wednesday night of the RNC.  It had a bit of "red meat" in it, but so did Joe Biden's when he gave his a week earlier.  And to be fair, that is what these speeches are supposed to be.  The VP is supposed to go on the offensive against the opposition.   This allows a more diplomatic, more inclusive speech from the nominee for president the following night.  I haven't heard McCain's speech yet, obviously, and so I can't comment on that.

One thing that I'll say is that I am impressed that Palin can think on her feet, rather than relying on a teleprompter to do her thinking for her.  In fact, during her speech, the teleprompted had a malfunction and so she did the bulk of her speech without its aid.  That speech was given from the heart.

I feel that Palin did a reasonably good job of introducing herself to the public, especially those that haven't read as much about her as my wife and I have over the past few months.  However, one thing that I didn't get out of the speech, was a clear view of how well she would stand up to a sinister leader such as Vladimir Putin.  This man is a former KGB leader, and for all practical purposes, has kept that organization alive, although in a different name now.

If John McCain is elected, and he were to keel over during his presidency, then Sarah Palin would become President of the United States.  Our enemies will test her, as they will test McCain or anyone else who becomes President.  They will test to see what they can get away with.  The terrorists will do it.  Putin will do it.  Chavez will do it.  The list goes on.

Judging from her history with dealing with the big money interests (with billions at stake), I have a feeling that Palin would do fine standing up against our enemies.  However, nothing in her speech said that to me.  I will be watching the upcoming debates to see how well she goes up against a "bitter old man".

Many people describe Joe Biden as a bitter old man, and in some respects, he is.  He certainly can be.  He can be very diplomatic and presidential in discussions, but I have noticed over the years that he becomes easily frustrated if the facts catch him in an inconsistency or a lie.  At this point, he can become agitated and nasty.  He tends to start making things up, or making personal attacks in order to "change the subject".  I had a lot or respect for Biden a decade ago, but less in more recent years.  I do respect him as far as being a tough opponent in a debate,  and in my opinion, he is probably the toughest person in debate that I have seen of the four current players.

So these debates are going to be very crucial for me level of comfort regarding whether or not Sarah Palin could step in as President if something were to happen to John McCain.

The Media Are Campaigning For Obama

I've said for a long time that the media have become active participants in the Obama campaign.  Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann definitely have a man-crush on Obama.  Even Hillary Clinton, who had always gotten a pass from the media before, was suddenly upset because now they were backing Obama, and she wasn't able to combat it.  They were against her, rather than just reporting the news.

In the past, John McCain has had friendly press.  This is mainly because he wasn't the typical Republican.  While others would surround the wagons and tow the party line, McCain would break with party and try to get things done.  He would join forces across the aisle and passed much legislation in favor of the American people, but not always with the approval of the party.

During this presidential campaign, there was a shift as soon as McCain got the nomination.  Suddenly, they turned on McCain.  They published unfounded rumors with no journalistic integrity, whereas they refused to publish unfounded rumors of any kind regarding Obama.

Even early in the primaries, the media refused to publish any unfounded rumors regarding marital infidelity on the part of John Edwards; and that turned out to be true.  There were facts.  It's not like it was unsubstantiated.  It's pretty bad when the National Inquirer can beat the New York Times to a substantiated story.

On the other hand, unsubstantiated stories were released regarding the Republicans.  First, there were accusations of infidelity on the part of John McCain, which turned out to be nothing.  They have remained unsubstantiated.  How does a legitimate news organization publish stories they can't substantiate?  Unless of course, they're a part of the political process on one side or the other?

And as soon as it was announced that Sarah Palin would  be the vice presidential candidate for the  Republicans, there were vicious unsubstantiated stories published about her.  They suggested that she wasn't the mother of her youngest baby, and that it was really her teenage daughter that was the mother.  How could a story like this be published with nothing more than suggestion?  No journalistic standards were observed in reporting this.

And when it turned out to be bogus, due to the fact that the teenage daughter was pregnant, the news media, instead of just shutting up about it, published this story.  They brought the family into the public even though the Obama camp had supposedly said that "family is off limits and not a part of the political process".

Essentially, Obama can afford to take the high road, because he knows the media are going to take the low road.  He even met with elements of the leftist fringe media when warned not to.  They have started a lot of these rumors against Palin, and yet Obama hasn't distanced himself from these groups.  He just plays like he's not a part of it and remains to take the high road.  This is much the same as how George W. Bush allowed Karl Rove to do his dirty work, and claimed no knowledge of it.

Is this Obama's meaning for "change" and a "new kind of politician"?

It aint new.

If Sarah Palin's daughter had an abortion, I'm assuming that the media would've not published her name or the story, because they have a sympathetic view of abortion rights and the right to privacy.  However, evidently, this right to privacy isn't afforded to a young teenage woman if she chooses to let the child live.  When have we seen the news media publish stories about teenage daughters of candidates, or about any teenage girls having children out of wedlock?

Again, Obama took the high road (after the fact), but he could afford to do this.  The story had already been made public; and of course, the news media is doing his dirty work for him.

And during the Democratic National Convention, we saw all kinds of divisive speeches.  Biden's was one of the worst.  That's a part of the process and to be expected.  However, during the Republican National Convention, the news commentators have gone on and on about how divisive the speeches have been during the convention; but they made no mention of this when it was the Democrats.  And they have even gone so far as to interview Joe Biden and allow him to rebutt some of the speeches.  And he actually had the gall to suggest that the speeches were "divisive".

Let's tell the truth here.  John McCain is one of the least divisive people in either house of Congress.  He is the one that has consistently reached across the aisle on behalf of the American people.  Obama never has.  Biden rarely, if ever, has.

And now the Republicans have a vice presidential candidate that is much like McCain.  She has reached across the aisle on behalf of the citizens.  She fought corruption in her own party.  She fought big oil.  She did it all when under funded in relation to her opposition.

On the other hand, Biden and Obama both have been a part of the political machine in Washington, that protects their own; rather than working on behalf of the American people.

Do I think that Sarah Palin walks on water?  No.  Of course not.  It's too early to tell much about her, although I've read a reasonable amount about her over this past year or so.  I do like the idea of someone that comes from an energy state, and knows energy and environmental issues.  These are things that Biden and Obama only know how to talk about from the party line; not from real experience.

I'm hoping that Palin turns out to be genuine.  What I've seen during the convention is consistent with what I've read about her for several months.  I think that McCain did a good job in picking her.  It was quite a surprise; especially for the media, who are definitely working on behalf of the Obama campaign to neutralize her affect to the McCain campaign.

I noticed that before Guiliani spoke at the convention, a CNN reporter asked him about negative statements he'd made about McCain during the primary race.  I have noticed that Biden, nor any of the other speakers during the DNC were ever asked the same thing.  And the fact is that Biden made some very harsh remarks about Obama during the primary race.

This is nothing really new.  I remember that when Bush (sr) was running against Bill Clinton, Dan Rather ran a story on "economy in jeopardy" at the end of every broadcast.  As soon as the election was over, he never ran it again.  You can't tell me this wasn't an attempt to influence the election results.

The news media are working hard to affect the election.  I've seen so many cases of this.  It is certainly different from how these same people covered the DNC.

Politics: So Tired of the B.S.

I'm tired of the bs. The rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum, has gotten so thick that I need boots to wade through it. And I'm learning towards getting some taller boots with a boat attached.

This week, the democrats had their national convention, to officially declare their candidate for President of the United States. The Republicans will do the same for their candidate next week. The reality is that both parties could do us all a favor and condense this all down to one day.
They wont do this though. This is their time to give some of the privileged few their chance to voice their feelings and/or to vent and/or to make themselves heard and seen in hopes of getting enough attention for future political ambitions. No serious discussion of the issues is done here. It's all cheerleading. It's all rhetoric. It's all lies, distortions, half-truths.

This week, Hillary Clinton spoke about her pet issues. She mentioned jobs being sent overseas, making it sound like it was Bush's fault. After all, everything is Bush's fault. The crowd lapped up her every word. The truth is, she was lying. It was her husband that signed into law the tax credits for companies like IBM to off-shore jobs. It wasn't George W. Bush. It was Bill Clinton.

Joe Biden, the running mate for Barak Obama, chose his own rants against McCain as well as the Bush Administration. It's not like some of the rants aren't deserved, but what Biden was doing was putting it on extra thick, with no serious imparting of the facts. It was all rhetoric again.
Biden had suggested that McCain was wrong because he was for keeping troops in Iraq, and now the Bush Administration as well as the Iraqi government as discussing a time table for troop redeployment. Biden suggests that he was right and that Obama was right, and that McCain was wrong. On the surface, that seems like a good argument. But wait a minute. According to this argument, Bush was right as well. However, lets go further into the issue. The whole reason there is any discussion by the Bush Administration or by the Iraqi government about troop redeployment, is because of the troop surge. McCain was for it. Biden was against it. Obama was against it. So in that line of thinking, Obama was wrong. Biden was wrong. Bush was right. McCain was right.
It all depends on how you look at it.

The bottom line is that we all wish that we hadn't gotten into the war to begin with. Everyone agrees with that. However, unlike Obama, Biden voted for the war. So how much credibility does he have in bringing up the issue?

And then there's Bill Clinton. Slick Willie was at his best again, doling out the soundbites. Anyone on the left lapped them up unquestioning. Everyone else were hoping for an enema.

Clinton suggests that just as it is suggested that Obama was too young and inexperienced to be president, that they had said the same thing about him; how much of an argument is that really? For one thing, Clinton had been a two-term governor. Obama hasn't. And, to tell the truth, Clinton did nothing to curb al Qaeda, and the result was no response regarding repeated attacks on Americans, including an attack on a US battle cruiser, the Cole.

Clinton points to his own foreign policy in dealing with tyrants, and the fact that he made peace agreements with countries like North Korea. However, he fails to point out that after the agreement, North Korea violated the deal in secret and were developing nuclear capability. So how affective was his policy? He calls the Bush policy a failed policy, but his certainly was no better.

And while we're talking about foreign policy, it was during the Clinton Administration that over 750,000 innocent civilians were murdered in Rwanda while the Clinton Administration sat by waiting for the UN to do something. The UN did nothing. In fact, the UN did have a few soldiers in Rwanda, but when the massacres went on, the UN (Belgian soldiers) ran away. The civilians were slaughtered. Do we really consider this to be a successful policy?

And Clinton points to the deficit. Yes, this is something I agree on. Bush spent worse than any Democrat (to date) had. However, if Obama gets all the things he says he wants, the spending will be even worse. So how could Clinton even suggest that this policy would be any different?
Clinton went on to talk about the tax cuts for the rich. What he was mostly talking about is the capital gains taxes. What he fails to mention is that the reduction in capital gains taxes is what boosted investment and helped the economy after it was slumping during the end of the Clinton years and into the Bush years. That slump was due to the failed dotcom era and little investor confidence in the tech sector. The cuts in capital gains provided additional revenue into our economy, as well as additional jobs that had been on the decline.

Hint.  This economy grows because of investment.  Investment brings capital into the economy.  Without it, there is recession.  The economy grows with capital, not with taxes.

Clinton went on to talk about the economy, which I agree could be better if not for Bush's spending out of control, but again, the democrats want to spend more. They want to take away the incentive to invest. They want to take away the incentive to create real jobs (not government jobs). And in addition, during the Bush years, the growth rate has still been a higher percentage above the overall economic output of the nation, in comparison to that of the Clinton years. So as bad as the Bush economic policy has been, Clinton's was worse and he knows it.

Clinton mentioned education as well as did Biden. Ted Kennedy mentioned it briefly as well. The thing is, none of them pointed out that Bush spent more on education than any president previously (including Clinton). In addition, Bush not only gave Sen. Kennedy the education bill that he wanted, but even gave him additional funding for it. And to hear them talk, it's not enough. If true, then they're failures too and certainly a part of the problem.

Several of the speakers mentioned the torturing of prisoners, eluding to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. These are men that would kill Americans if given the chance. Some have already killed Americans. These politicians seem very concerned about the rights of these men, but show no concern for the rights and well-being of unborn babies in this country. They're not even on the radar because it's not politically correct.And to be truthful, was McCain not one of the Senators opposed to torture? So how serious is this discussion really?

The purpose of these speeches, for the most part, was to fire up the audience and to get them excited about being at the convention. However, the real purpose of the convention was to tally the delegate votes to determine who the candidate would be, and we knew before the convention who that would be. Did we not?

AT&T gave millions of dollars to the democrats (to the republicans too). In return, (including a vote by Barak Obama who at first was opposed), they voted to keep telecom companies from being sued if they had co-operated with government investigations regarding wire taps. Is this the kind of change this candidate speaks of? It seems that he has become what he has been preaching against. He has catered to the privileged few who have the money to buy from government what they want.

The truth is that neither party leaders really understand the average person on the street and what we want in a government. They are both selling us out as far as our economic and territorial sovereignty. Neither show any concern for the average working man in this country. They just talk about it.

When Obama was running for the Senate, he got organized labor's support because he said that he'd renegociate NAFTA. After he got into office, the subject has never been mentioned again. Is this the sign of a man that represents change? If its a change in what he'll do versus what he'll promise in order to get a vote, then yes, it's change. Is it good for the country? No.
The truth is that in every election, these guys just want to get elected. They talk about a few key issues that they feel people are interested in. These include the military (if we're at war), education, the economy, civil rights, the environment, etc. And to tell the truth, the environment is only an issue on election years. The rest of the time, it's business as usual. If you don't believe me, start watching your typical liberal and what cars they drive, how they drive, and what they're really concerned about as far as air pollution, global climate change, natural resources, etc. You'll see that it's just an issue to "talk" about but in reality, only a few people really care enough to live what they say.

There are probably people in both parties that actually care about one or more of these subjects, but they typically have a different approach to solving these problems, or they have a different priorities on which problems should be solved first (and how much money should be spent). For the most part, this is little difference between the leaders of both parties, as these are politicians first, party second and American's third. (I could say elite American third, and American citizen fourth). That's their priorities.

The Republicans will have their convention next week. I have no reason to believe that the rhetoric will be any different. I have lost hope that it will.

Where are the statesmen (and women)?

Soundbites Rule / Solutions Fall On Deaf Ears

Soundbites rule nowadays. Politicians only care about getting elected or re-elected. No real solutions are pursued.

Goals without plans are just wishes.

Obama used a soundbite from T.Boone Pickens recently, in discussion the energy problem and oil. He quoted Pickens as saying "Drilling isn't the answer" and then proceeded to demonize anyone that suggests that we should have more domestic drilling. This is the perfect example of the soundbite, because the audience nodded their heads in agreement, even though the fact is that he intentionally misquoted Pickens.

What Pickens actually said is "Drilling alone, isn't the answer". In an interview after the Obama speech, Pickens made a point to re-iterate his original statements, and to clarify that he feels that every reasonable avenue of energy exploration should be pursued, but that any one solution is not a solution at all. That's what he said, but that's not a soundbite. Soundbites get easy votes. Explanations fall on deaf ears.

Soundbites make people smile. The win elections. They don't solve problems.

Wouldn't it be nice to get a politician that didn't care about being re-elected? Of course, these aren't politicians. They're called statesmen. It's really hard for a statesman to be elected, because people want soundbites. They want some simple little blurb that makes them feel better, and that makes them feel smarter and/or more virtuous than people they disagree with. Feelings don't provide solutions. They never have. They never will.