Yay! Spiffy stickers!

Guess what I did...
















And I got a free cup of coffee... then I bought myself a scone. It was delicious... tasted like freedom!

Happy Election Day!

Happy election day, everybody! Make sure you go vote (unless of course, you're not informed!).

Here's one for the tinfoil hat, I'm-moving-to-Canada crowd:





Only 76 more days of Dubya. Tonight it begins.

Election Generalities

I sit here this morning less than two weeks away from the next presidential election. Since I last expounded on the subject, we've seen more debates, new campaign strategies, and perhaps the best political SNL impression in the show's history. At this point, I'd just like to give my general impression of the goings-on in this race.

On one side, we have John McCain. Senator McCain wants me to identify with a tax-dodging plumber from the upper Midwest. It seems he follows president Bush's economic philosophy; mainly, that by spending money on an ever-growing military budget and off the wall mandated programs, then giving massive tax breaks to everyone from large corporations to the lowest of tax brackets, he'll somehow magically create a boom in the job market. Meanwhile, his VP nominee displays basically zero knowledge of foreign policy issues beyond the "Go, America, Go!" attitude that seems to... *ahem* "excite the Republican base." All the while she's running up a bill for clothes that exceeds my lifetime income to date.

Then, on the other side, we have Barack Obama. Senator Obama is a typical Democrat, economically at least. His grand plan is to get my vote by promising to implement more expensive social programs than his elaborate tax plan can possibly pay for. He's going to subsidize everything from healthcare, to college loans, to environmentally sound industry.

I suppose, in this economic respect, this is a typical election, in that both parties want to spend more money than they can afford to fund their parties pet projects.

Personal attacks have taken on an interesting character in this election as well. Obama and Palin are both getting cries of inexperience from the other side. McCain has been decried as out of touch with everyday Americans. The interesting ones, though, come directed at Obama from that excited Republican base (and their fear-mongering FOX news/ talk radio pundits). There is, of course, the accusation that he's a Muslim, which, while being completely false, I somewhat resent. The idea that being a Muslim would make someone unqualified to be president is ridiculous. These are often accompanied by accusations of ties to al-Qaeda. Then there are the assumptions (fueled by the McCain campaign) that '60s anti-war terrorist Bill Ayers is his closest adviser; the two served together on an education reform committee in Chicago and are friends, but Ayers does not work for the Obama campaign. Similar false accusations were made about failed executives from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The silliest ones seem to be about Obama's race. Apparently there's a rumor going around that Obama isn't actually African American, that he's 1/4 black and 1/2 Middle Eastern (again, the implication that an Arab American is automatically unqualified to be president is disgusting), and is only trying to court the black vote. This, of course, is easily debunked. Obama's ethnicity is a matter of public record, plus, he has been very forthcoming about his family history.

Is my bias showing yet? I guess my point is that there are a lot of reasons to dislike both these guys without making stuff up. Hate them for who they are, not for the names their opponents call them.

BUT! I, again, chose optimism! How can we go wrong, America, in an election year where EVERYBODY's the change candidate? At the time of this writing, we've only got 85 days left of George W. Bush, and that's something over 80% of us can celebrate!
Keep an eye on it! ------------------------>

As always, my dear silent and few readers, I'd be happy to discuss any of this further, but let's keep something straight... I consider my personal politics personal, and neither of these candidates represent them well, so this would be discussion for the sake of discussion. Politics is fun for me, and I'm a firm believer that we can agree to disagree, and still be friends at the end of the day.

In conclusion, boo Republicans for not supporting Ron Paul.

Into the Arms of the Hockey Mom.

Here's a thought: in Thursday's Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden is going to slam Sarah Palin into the ground. His rhetorical victory will be overwhelming on the vast majority of the issues discussed. As a result he will lose.

He will be seen as being too hard on her, too aggresive to this pioneering, family-oriented woman, and will turn a large chunk of swing voters into the arms of the hockey mom.

I hope I'm wrong.

Cut Through the Crap?

One thing I hate about election season is that there's so much bullshit thrown about. It's convention season, after all, and that means the major parties are busy congratulating themselves and telling you how horrible their opponents are. It's an interesting part of the process, but often the candidates are so full of it, it just makes me sick.

Recently, I heard about factcheck.org, a site run by a non-profit group out of the University of Pennsylvania, that's dedicated to taking the soundbites and slogans of national politics, and basically filling in the holes. Wondering if McCain really considers everyone making less than $5 million/year middle class? Does Obama really want to give up Iraq to the trrists? Well, they try to answer questions like that. For example, here is an analysis of Obama's nomination acceptance speech, and here is an analysis of Tuesday's Republican convention mudslinging.

It is worth noting that most of the articles seem to be pointed at McCain's campain. Whether this is because they're more full of crap than the Obama side, or it's actually an indication of bias, I'm not sure. But as the campaign ramps up toward November, I'm going to be keeping an eye on it. It seems though, that this site could be a good resource to cut through the crap. God knows, they're laying it on thick these days.

Election Impressions, 2008 (part III) The Republicans

This post has been two weeks coming, and in that space of time, the Republican side of the primaries has gotten extremely boring. While two weeks ago we were talking about a brokered convention, now it's McCain, McCain, McCain. Well, alas, it is not what it could have been. Here they are, following the same guidelines as I followed for the Democrats.

*Former Governor Mike Huckabee
Huckabee is still the favorite candidate among the religious right. In addition to all of what that brings, he supports the Iraq war, and is big on national defense, securing the borders, etc. Somewhat refreshingly, he does support the Fair Tax plan, and the abolition of the IRS. That aside though, I'm glad he isn't going to win the nomination, given his statements about wanting to amend the Constitution to "follow God's law." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for following God's law, but that's not the government's place. There are plenty of people in this country who would disagree about what God's law is, what God is giving the laws, or whether or not there's any God with any laws to begin with, so let's not go pulling down the first amendment, okay?

*Senator John McCain
McCain, for better or worse, is the guy for the Republicans. He lacks somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 delegates before he has the required count for the nomination, and has a 600 delegate lead over his closest competition, Mitt Romney, who endorsed him this week. He also has the endorsements of President Bush, the Governator, and a whole slew of prominent Republicans. McCain is best known for being a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and being a moderate in the Senate, crossing party lines on a number of votes, most notably the 2001 "Bush tax cuts", and co-sponsoring a number of bills with Democrats, most notably the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Recently, though, he's been trying to appeal to conservatives, saying that if he had the chance again, he would vote for the tax cuts, as well as being a strong proponent of the Iraq war, and the president's "surge" strategy. He was recently quoted as saying that we would stay in Iraq for "100 years" if necessary. Personally, I think he's much more moderate than he's been making himself out to be recently, and I'm going to wait to see how he stacks up against his eventual Democratic opponent before I make a decision reguarding McCain.

* Representative Dr. Ron Paul
From the beginning of this, Ron Paul has been my candidate. Really, he represents the only time in my short voting life that a major party's candidate has lined up with the majority of my views. Though he's a long-time Republican, he conforms much more to the party's long-time basic ideals than its recent practices, advocating small government and low taxes. What truly set him apart from the rest of the Republican field is his opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning. Essentially, he comes out to being fairly libertarian. In the preliminary campaigning season, it looked like he might surprise some people in the elections; he put up some astounding fundraising statistics, and made a splash going toe-to-toe with Rudy Giuliani over foreign policy in the debates. The media, though, never really gave him a lot of publicity, and while his supporters may be some of the most dedicated, he never really caught on with the larger party base, and has consistently brought in 5-15% of the voters in most Republican contests. Frankly, I had much higher hopes that the candidate I actually registered for a party to vote for would make a stronger showing, but I'm content that there are other people (and at least one actually in government) that feel the way I do about the way our country is going. A vote for Paul has become a vote for his message, and I'm encouraged that that message is not dead yet.


There is one positive I failed to mention about Governor Huckabee...he rocks!

Election 2008, Impressions (part II) The Democrats

So, I lied. I didn't get this done yesterday. But here it is...today. Anyway.

As I sit here and write this, there is currently less than an hour until the polls close in the South Carolina primary. This could mean the end of the road for one or more candidates, but I'm writing right now with the current candidates still in mind. So, without further ado, the Democrats:

*Senator Hillary Clinton
Basically, when you get down to it, I'm not really a big fan. First of all, I disagree with her on many issues. She's been known for a long time as a major proponent of a socialized healthcare plan. On the war, she's been inconsistent. She made a major mistake in the beginning, voting to approve war funding and to give the president permission for a long-term deployment. She's since advocated a withdrawal from Iraq. Whether this is truly what she wants, or if she's merely following the popular sentiments of her party, God only knows. As far as most domestic issues go, she's basically a classic Democrat, favoring increased government programs and assistance, and covering the cost through tax increases. To her credit, she has recently advocated a balanced budget, but personally, I don't want to cover the costs for a lot of things she'd be paying for. On the positive side, I do like the ideas behind her plan to increase confidence in government. Also, her immigration reform plans seem like a step in the right direction, if not a genuine solution. She likes to paint herself as the experienced candidate. Apparently, being first lady gives her experience, because being a Senator makes her soooo unique in this years' field. What it ultimately comes down to for me, though, is that I just don't trust her. I look at Hillary and I see a politician's politician. I realize this is truly subjective, and that if she does get elected, she may turn out to be a noble leader, but I'd be willing to bet that she'd do whatever she could and step on whoever she could to get her personal agenda ahead. Also, a Hillary win means a return to Bill. Anyone who's been paying attention can see that, for better or worse, they're operating this thing as a team, and though it probably won't be in any official capacity, he would wield influence in a Hillary White House.

*Former Senator John Edwards
Edwards, who was a major player in the 2004 Democratic primaries, and the eventual running mate for John Kerry, has fallen somewhat by the wayside in this year's elections. He, like all the Democratic candidates, favors a comprehensive healthcare system; his plan would call for across the board coverage by 2012, paid for by repealing tax cuts passed during the Bush administration. Also, poorer families would receive tax subsidies. He's also proposed a plan to end poverty by 2037, of which one of the steps would be to move the poverty line. Some of the policies make sense to me, some do not, but considering I could write an entire post about it, I'm not going to get into details. Needless to say, it would entail a lot of government handouts. For foreign policy, on one hand, he favors a quick withdrawal from Iraq, but on the other hand, advocates US intervention in other countries on other issues. He also favors education reform, and giving legal status to some illegal immigrants. The way things look now, if he does not put together a strong showing in today's South Carolina primary, he may drop out of the race. South Carolina being his home state, this probably represents his best chance for a win. That said, he may stay in all the way to the convention on principal. If his history is any indication, he may try for a spot in the administration of an eventual Democratic winner.

*Former Senator Mike "Give 'em Hell" Gravel
Mike Gravel is the only marginal candidate still in the race for the Democrats. He is most known for being from Alaska, strange YouTube videos, and standing on the edge of the stage during debates, yelling about how he doesn't get enough opportunities to speak. He is staunchly anti-war, emphasizes environmental responsibility, supports the Fair Tax plan, universal health care, and increased funding for education. All that said, none of his positions hold any importance in his race, as his party has completely written him off. None of his opponents pay him any mind, and the commentators don't even bother dismissing him anymore.

*Senator Barack Obama
Obama, unlike the other viable candidates in this race, has consistently voted against the war in Iraq. He supports tax reforms to make the code more simple, and also provide tax credits to the working class. He supports the establishment of a preschool education system, as well as further reforms for national education requirements to encourage higher performance. He also supports universal health care. Uniquely, he favors negotiating with our enemies, rather than ending all relations completely. The main problem with him is that I can't see him speak without thinking of Dave Chappelle impersonating a white guy! Seriously though, he says he's the change candidate...again, whether or not he would actually change anything, time may tell. A lot of people seem to talk about him affecting the vote simply by virtue of being black. This may be true, but the same situation could be said of Clinton being a woman.

Together, their mudslinging has brought the race to a point of constant accusations, the funniest of which took place in last weeks' debate, in which they spent ten minutes arguing about who liked Ronald Reagan the least. Anyway, this election is still tight, and depending on how super Tuesday comes out, this one may go deep into the primaries without being decided.

The next post will cover the Republicans. Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this thought:

Election 2008, Impressions (part 1)

This post was supposed to outline my impressions of the current presidential candidates. As I began reading and writing, though, I realized that these impressions were inherently tied to my views on the "hot button" issues. It quickly became apparent that I'd have much more explaining to do than I originally intended, so, I've decided to write this one in a few separate parts. Part one here covers my opinions on some of the big issues this election year. I haven't covered every little thing, and I'd be happy to respond to inquiries about other issues. So, here it is, the post to inform my readership (which, by my estimates, fluctuates from around 2-5) of my opinions on some issues, because I feel it's necessary if I'm going to discuss my opinions on the current crop of candidates. Also, because I like talking politics. Now, with that tripe out of the way, on to the post proper:

Here are my basic stances on a few key campaign issues:

• I am against national healthcare. Yes, our current system is broken, but putting it in the hands of the government is not the way to fix it. That will only break it in new, different ways.
• The war in Iraq is wrong. We went there under false pretenses, and threw a relatively stable country into chaos. Yes, Saddam was an evil man and deserved to be dealt with, but not by us. Now, we are stuck maintaining an occupation that's costing billions of dollars that could be spent on a worthy cause at home, while we watch as some thousands of our finest men and women, who could be working to ensure the security of our nation, are killed propping up a weak government. We've lost sight of our true, direct enemy, Al Qaeda who attacked us on our own soil, and still considers themselves to be in a state of war with all Americans, military and civilian. Meanwhile, we anger less extreme Muslims and bolster our enemy's cause with our unjust war. All that said, we cannot abandon Iraq just yet. We need to work DIPLOMATICALLY with the disputing IRAQI parties, and broker some sort of consensus, where they can govern and police the country themselves. Then, we can pull the troops out.
• Yes, we have a problem with illegal immigration. Does it bother me? Not a whole lot. People want to come here because, despite its myriad problems, this is the freest country in the world. Rather than simply step up enforcement to try keeping people out, we should make it easier for those who want to come here and contribute to our economy to get here legally. Also, people who are here on some sort of work or study visa, and desire to stay longer should be able to, but if they desire to stay, they should have to become citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. This issue is very simple, really. Those who want to live here permanently should become citizens. If they do not, they need to extend their visa or go back home. None of this hanging around, undocumented business. As for the illegal immigrants already here, I favor blanket amnesty on a track to citizenship. If they do not want citizenship, they should obtain some sort of documentation or face deportation. This is unpopular with many people, because it rewards illegal behavior. I suppose it does. But it also provides a pragmatic solution to a problem that's not going away. This would be a one time thing, and before it took place, enforcement would have to be ramped up. Once the amnesty program was complete, nothing like it should be needed again, unless the situation drastically changed.
  
• I'm pro-choice, anti-abortion. I think unless the health of the mother is at risk, it's always a better decision to carry a baby to be born, and if you don't want a child, give it up for adoption. At the same time, I know it's not my place to make decisions for pregnant women. It may be an ugly practice, but it's not the government's place to say whether or not it can be done. That's between the woman in question, her doctor, and her God.
• Our tax system is inherently broken. It is complicated and unfair. Depending on your particular occupation and level of income, your money may be taxed five times before it leaves your hands. For a long time, I've favored a flat tax, with breaks built in for charitable donations. Then again, income tax was unconstitutional in this country until 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment. I read somewhere that without income taxes, the government's budget would only be cut down to the size of that in the late 90's. While I don't see this as entirely practical, it's clear that our tax system needs to be scrapped completely, not tweaked.
  
• The rampant deficit spending out country has been up to since 2001 needs to end, now. In order to stop our currency and our economic standing with the rest of the world from plummeting, we need to get away from the constant meddling with the money supply and balance the budget. Congress needs to wrest control of the dollar from the federal reserve (as is its constitutional responsibility), and stop creating larger bureaucratic structures for and throwing money at every problem that comes along. Though the current system is entrenched in the minds of most people as the only way, Congress has the power to change it. Unfortunately, it will never happen without a push from the American people.

Again, this is far from comprehensive. Part two should come tomorrow; it'll be about the Democrats.