change.gov

One of the more interesting parts of this week has been observing the varied reactions to the news of Obama's victory. Fox News was somber, but congratulatory, and recognized how historic the event really is. The Republicans appear to have been completely divided in this election, much in the same way the Democrats were when Eugene McCarthy decided to challenge the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (both were Democrats).

Part of the Republican party, dare I say the more centrist conservatives, are blaming Sarah Palin for their defeat. This charge is being led by the McCain staffers who are making claims such as that Mrs. Palin was not aware that Africa is not a country and that she could not name the countries involved in NAFTA (you know, those three that are in North America). Full disclosure: I think Palin is not very bright, and I fear a country that has her as a leader, but not knowing that Africa is a continent is a pretty heavy charge. Despite the fact that our public school systems are not in the best shape I think you'd have a tough time finding a high school student who is not aware of Africa's stance in the continent/country relationship.

The other half of the Republican party has rallied around Palin. In fact it seems that more than half of the party is rallying around Palin. A recent poll indicates that 64% of Republicans want Palin to run in 2012. This would be the religious right that didn't think McCain was conservative enough.

Nonetheless, the reactions have been favorable towards Obama (for the most part). It seems to me that the country realizes that he is the president for the next four years, no matter what, so it's time to make the best of it. Though, this certainly is not a unanimous reaction, there have been reports of hate crimes across the country in connection with the election, and there have certainly been some pundits who are ready to attack.

One in particular, the ever devisive Ann Coulter, published an article in Human Rights (oh, the irony) called "The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain." It shouldn't be shocking that she has published a largely offensive article deriding the opinion of most Americans (at least the voting Americans). But the article goes beyond what I expected in the first week following the election. Especially after Fox News didn't even get too mixed up in the hatefulness this early on (though I'm sure it's not far behind).

The article opens, "Last night was truly a historic occasion: For only the second time in her adult life, Michelle Obama was proud of her country!" 

She continues:

After Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election, Hillary Clinton immediately announced that, henceforth, she would be known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton." So maybe Obama can now become B. Hussein Obama, his rightful name.

Her rampant racism and bigotry never fails to produce a little gasp within me, how could anyone be so stuck in a 1930's mentality I wonder, but I will probably never have a satisfactory answer. She not only continues her hateful pursuit of a Crusades-esque reform in America, she begins calling people out on their racism, while saying some blatantly racist things:

This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?

Apparently Florida voters didn't mind Obama's palling around with Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, either. There must be a whole bunch of retired Pennsylvania Jews down there.

I'll continue in a moment, I just have to throw this quote in for good measure:

Roll that phrase around a bit -- "liberated from Mr. Reagan's coattails." This is why it takes so long to read the Times -- you have to keep reading the same paragraph over again to see if you missed a word.

Is she trying to say don't read the paper because it's above you? I'm confused. Moving on.

She then throws out her hopes of a Palin presidency:

Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days.

Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give birth to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too.

And then she shows her disdain for the democratic process, when it doesn't follow her personal ideology:

After showing nearly superhuman restraint throughout this campaign, which was lost the night McCain won the California primary, I am now liberated to announce that all I care about is hunting down and punishing every Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries. I have a list and am prepared to produce the names of every person who told me he was voting for McCain to the proper authorities.

We'll start with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Then we shall march through the states of New Hampshire and South Carolina -- states that must never, ever be allowed to hold early Republican primaries again.

Sure she's joking around a bit, but really, take a look around Ms. Coulter, the Moral Majority's time ruling America is ending. And I, for one, am glad. I'm also glad that there are pundits like her to continue to support Palin, and that there is deep divide running through the Republican party, maybe the other side will have a chance now to correct the errors that the rights domination of politics over the last couple of decades have inflicted on the country. I'm not a fan of knowing that my younger brother has only known a country at war, and that the generation of young people who are currently in high school are completely desensitized to the concept of "war," it's all they have ever known. I also don't like living in a country where the continued plummeting of the stock market and the economy at large is leaving no one safe to feel "secure" in their employment, that our parents generation is losing their retirement funds, losing their hopes for social security, and without proper health care coverage will probably work their way into their graves. She mentions Obama's tax hikes on the "rich." That is not me just quoting her, she puts "rich" in quotes. There are no quotes needed. If you make over a quarter of a million dollars every year you are indeed rich. And it's time to recognize that. A tax hike on someone who makes, say 30 grand, is not helping the country. It's not providing a stable economy, it's not providing people the opportunity to prosper and put money back into the economy, in that simple cycle of monetary flow that is called capitalism. The quotes around "rich" are a perfect metaphor for what she does not understand, and what can potentially change throughout the next four years, and beyond.

But, please, continue your squabbling, it can only benefit President-elect Obama and the new Democrat controlled congress in four years. Your service to your country is appreciated, the left is no longer listening, so please, continue to be the clever that will ensure a Democratically controlled legislative and executive branch for the next eight years.

It's Election Day

And instead of posting some stupid rant about how you should vote I have decided against this. My inbox was full of "Hey, you should vote today" reminders, and that's all well and good, but I'm going to, and you either are or you aren't. I have decided, instead, to provide updated links throughout the day of some good reading to help relieve your anxiety till we have a new president today.

CNN has a really great electoral vote tracker. You can follow the house, the senate and the presidential races as well as your local elections. Very nice.

Election Night Updates, Guides and Reflections:
Can Obama Get the Popular Vote and Lose the election? (Yahoo! News)
McCain sues State of Virginia for 10 Additional Days for Military Personnel
Wet Ballots Clogging Voting Machines in Virginia (CNN)
Republican Election Board Members are Illegally Removing Poll-Watchers in Philadelphia, Again
Translating the Polls into Electoral Votes (Guernica) - Sidenote: this article isn't entirely accurate any longer. Slate was reporting yesterday that in the final polls McCain has pulled ahead in Missouri, that Obama has pulled ahead in North Dakota, they are no longer considering Virginia "in play" for McCain, and they are now reporting that Georgia is a toss up. Awesome.
The Year of Living at the Edge of Our Seats (NY Times)
Barack Obama for President by Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic) - Thanks to Christopher Coake for the head's up on this one.
John Dickerson's Election Night Tip Sheet (an hour by hour update of what's really going on) (Slate)


Other Political scrawlings and Websites:
Stock Surge on Election Day (Bloomberg)
270 to Win
Minnesota 6th Graders Get Out the Vote (Huffington Post)
A Year of Smears (Blogs Are About Ego (Here))
The Ramones Estate Battles of McCain Endoresment (F10)
Jello Biafra Talks About the Election with John Doe (Sundance Channel Blog)
Jay-Z: "Obama's Running So That We All Can Fly" (Prefix Magazine)
Hip-Hop Stars Stump fr Obama in Florida (Billboard)
Women and Gays for McCain (Guernica)
A Thought For Election Day (Of It Maybe)
A Poem Before the Election (InDigest Blog)
One More Time for Good Measure (StreetArtObserverDaily)

Random Funny Stuff:
The People's Mario

Translating the Polls into Electoral Votes

November has arrived, and you can literally count down the hours until the polls open for the 2008 presidential election. This is the time where the pollster really earns their keep, polling incessantly, in every variation they can think of, day and night. But most of these polls reflect the popular vote. So, what does this really mean? You’d have to take all of the national and state polls and place them into context within each state, tallying that states electoral votes against the chances of a candidate winning and figure out who can hit the magic number. 270. That’s the magic number of electoral votes that clinches the deal, 270.

Now, without delving into the problems inherit in the Electoral College system, I think this would be a good time, as I said you can count the hours, to take a look at the breakdown of how either candidate could potentially win this election. There are a lot of states that any pollster, New York Times reader, or political junkie could tell you are all but shored up for the candidates, except for that voting bit, but who wants to wait for that. There are also a handful of states that, at this point, are certainly too close to call. These swing states would include Colorado (9), Florida (27), Indiana (11), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nevada (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Virginia (13). (The number in parenthesis are the number of electoral votes each state has, this will important later.)

Here is the breakdown of the states that polls* seem to have conclusively (as conclusively as is possible, while being entire prone to errors) determined a winner in, the non-swing states. McCain is the likely winner in: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), West Virginia (5), and Wyoming (3). Obama is the likely winner in: California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), New York (31), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (11), and Wisconsin (10). These are certainly not guarantees for either candidate, but the polls and historical precedents seem to indicate that these states are in little danger of swinging. If these projections are correct than that leaves John McCain with 157 electoral votes and Barack Obama with 243 electoral votes before factoring in any swing states.

Though this is no guarantee of anything it appears that McCain needs to get out the vote in the swing states, in a big way, if he is going to win this election. There are certainly many X factors involved, but even in the expanded number of swing states this year Obama has the upper hand. In a combination of recent polling McCain only has the edge in North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. While Obama is polling stronger than McCain in Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. (Side note: Missouri currently has the longest record of voting for whoever wins the presidency*, and is the only swing state that has absolutely inconclusive polls at the moment. The polls vary from Obama by 2 points to McCain by 2 points*.) With both parties making calls and knocking on doors frantically in all these states with only minutes remaining it seems that anything could happen. But if the predicted states remain the same Obama only needs to pull out two of the bigger swing states to cross the 270 threshold. This should be of some consolation to Obama supporters who fear repeats of 2000 in Florida, where one swing state determined the fate of the nation. While this is still a possibility, it would take a serious turn around in almost all of the swing states for McCain and Palin to make a serious run. Polls across the nation still seem to be close, and McCain has gained some ground over the past week, but the electoral votes are still falling heavily in favor of Obama. In fact, if you tabulate the conglomerate of the polls in every state as though the polls represented actual votes (and give McCain Missouri, because this is a hypothetical and why not) Obama wins with 353 electoral votes to McCain’s 185. This, more likely than not, is not going to be the case on election day. But it’s interesting to extract exactly what these polls, which litter the papers daily, mean in terms of the electoral college, which is all that really matters in the end. *

* The polls used here are Reuters/Zogby, CNN/Time, LA Times/Bloomberg, AP/GfK Battleground, Civitas, Marist, American Research, Public Policy, Strategic Vision, Survey USA, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Selzer & Co., Research 2000, and Mason Dixon Research.
* Information taken from 270towin.com
* CNN/Time poll on 10/29 has McCain up by 2 points, American Research poll released on 10/31 have them even, and a Reuters/Zogby poll on 10/27 has Obama up by 2.
* The author wishes to note, that even if there is any truth in this article (which there may not be) that is not a reason for an uncast ballot.

A Year of Smears or Barack Obama is a Muslim and Al Franken Laughs at the Disabled

This election year was, at one time and like so many others, filled with promises of a "clean" race from the candidates, both presidential and congressional. But it seems that the races across the nation have unraveled at an alarming rate. McCain's campaign has started to take their ads and appearances in the media as opportunities to instill fear in voters. The persistance of their attempts to make Obama look "Un-American" (see Michelle Bachmann for more on what it takes to be "Un-American"). Their continued push to convince voters that Obama is an Anti-Semite along with the enduring effort by the far right to make Obama a Muslim in the public's eyes (and make that a thing to be feared) are enough to make any critical thinking American, of any persuasion, wonder what the values of this campaign really are (excluded from the list of values would be religious freedom, honesty, and tolerance).

Of course, you can create an argument why any politician should not be trusted. But the premise of these attacks underscores what would be most frightening about a McCain presidency. These type of attacks are being seen throughout the Republican party, likely due to a certain degree of fear within the party about the potential they have to lose power at all levels in the upcoming election.

The major issue here shouldn't even be that they are outright lying to voters, or that they are trying to use fear tactics in the election, these, unfortunately, are pretty commonplace in elections across the globe. But this is especially frightening in a election year were issues of race have been at the forefront of the political discussion. It goes beyond most of the race issues that have typically been at hand this year. This dialogue is feeding a fear of Middle-Eastern men, which obviously has it's roots in the panic following 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq among other assorted incidents that have sought to promote this view. It also acts as though "Middle-Eastern men" are one race, and not an umbrella term for many different groups of people in one, very large, region of the globe. A fear that is truly unjustifiable, especially in a country, and an election, where the leaders constantly expound upon the importance of diversity, tolerance, and "American" values of freedom. Though this, of course, is out of one side of their collective mouth, while their actions only bolster a transient racism that is being revealed to be a crucial part of the political game.

My interest in the portrayal of Obama as a Muslim was piqued again this past weekend. I assumed that this story had been pretty much smothered as a transparent smear tactic (which shouldn't really be a smear, but that's not the reality of America at this point, nor is it the point of this article). But, over the weekend, two friends brought up stories that rekindled my interest in the topic. I was told of a child a friend saw on the train being told by her mother that Obama is a Muslim when he asked who they are going to vote for, as though the statement contained the answer. The second story came from another friend who had spoke with her mother over the weekend about a party the mother attended. The mother, who I will call Sally, walked out of a party with their neighbors when the neighbors began to berate Sally and her husband for their intentions to vote for a Muslim (this is a shortened version of the story). It even went a step further than that, as the neighbor's five-year-old child told Sally that Barack Obama wants to kill babies.

Now, this is frightening in more than one respect. The initial outrage is that a man's religion is being used as a reason you should not vote for someone, and we are talking religion, it's not a cult like Heaven's Gate here, nor is it a terrorist organization, it is a religion (think what you will of organized religion this is a differentiation to be drawn). But in both instances the parents were instilling fear in their children, teaching them that you can't trust a Muslim, that it's a religion to be feared, that it's a word to be feared, that a Muslim man who wants to kill babies could potentially run your country. They are lying to a child, teaching them to fear, when they can't even take part in the political process, much less begin to comprehend the ramifications of this stance.

Since hearing about this (which clearly reveals I live a certain type of life and am out of touch with people of a certain disposition, yes, that I concede) I began consulting stories from the early summer trying to understand how I had assumed that everyone had accepted this as a shallow, transparent lie that was being used to instill fear in the electorate. It is at this point that I realized the issue was still as prevalent as it was when I had first heard mention of it. This message is still condoned and widely believed. A poll, released Wednesday, found that 23% of Texans believe that Obama is a Muslim. In terms of the electoral college, this is irrelevant, Texas will always swing Republican, but that is not what is important in this study (which was actually a part of an election poll). The 2007 census estimate of Texas' population was 23,904,380. That means that approximately 5,498,007 people, in Texas alone, have bought the lie. Which, in itself, reveals the reason a party, or individual, would want to spread a lie that is even as transparent as this. You can instill millions of people with fear through a couple of words, whether they are true or not, whether "facts" and statements are later retracted or not. The article where the findings are released, from The Houston Chronicle, claims that in the most recent national polls 5-10% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. If these statistics are to be trusted, even at the most conservative estimate, an excess of 17 million people in America believe this to be true.

This same premise is seen in Michael Goldfarb's (the McCain Campaign’s National Spokesman) smug remarks on his recent appearance on CNN. Goldfarb asserts that he believes Obama to be Un-American and, more particularly, that he surrounds himself with Anti-Semites and terrorists. Yet, when probed for names of the Anti-Semites Obama pals around with he refused to provide names. It is not necessary to use facts to make facts. Even with an accredited journalist like Rick Sanchez doing his job (asking questions) next to him, Goldfarb knew that he just needed to continue saying that Obama is an Anti-Semite, even if he doesn't have real proof, because if it is heard, people will believe it.

This is the premise that seems to be behind many of the Republican ads this year (though the Democrats are not completely innocent either). There is an ad that was released this past week that was particularly demonstrative of this plan of attack. Norm Coleman's newest ad attacking Al Franken does not back up any of it's claims, and offers no stance on Mr. Coleman or his platform. It follows the idea that if something is said it can be influential and make unjustified claims facts. By making the attack a quote (every attack in the ad is presented as a quote), from any source, it starts to feel authentic, even if the quotes are used out of context. The ad makes some umbrella statements that dig into Franken in a nearly pornographic fashion. The end of the ad in particular is very aggressive. It states:

Al Franken Humiliates Minorities, demeans women, writes pornography, makes child abuse a joke, laughs at the disabled.

No lie. That is the ad.

This kind of ad is not only abrasive for it's lack of integrity, it's lack of factual information, and it's presupposition that all voters are dumb and will believe this if they hear it. It also is abrasive because when I first saw this ad I was watching a hockey game. I see Norm Coleman on the news, or on his own time, when he has the stage, and he talks about values and religion, but in another situation, where he doesn’t implicitly have my attention, when a viewer is not trying to get their daily dose of politics, then he is creating a hateful message, trying to manipulate voters by an aggressive ad that will attempt to snap the viewer from their current focus. By contrast, the Franken ads during the some block of time focused on Franken's platform. The one attack in the Franken ads (I'm only looking at the ads displayed during this two hour block of time) was that Coleman voted with Bush 86% of the time. Which isn't necessarily about issues, but it's a fact and it's specific, opposed to "Al Franken...laughs at the disabled."

Now, I’m aware that this is not a new development in American politics, or politics around the world, but it is continually frightening to see these ads which are often thought of as transparent and invoke the kind of reaction I am having right now. But the continued prevalence of this type of advertising and campaigning is a testament to its ability to work on many voters, and I’m just not sure what that says about the electorate. American voters are often considered dumb, and are pandered to in an election that often amounts to little more than a popularity contest. But I find myself in a minority thinking that the American voter is much more intelligent that they are given credit for. Voters often see the transparency of such tactics, and many who don’t vote see through this too, and it is likely the cause of their disinterest. I believe it is a misconception that people who don’t vote don’t pay attention. They may be paying more attention that a good quantity of the voting public. The vast majority of voters know what issues matter, and pay attention, and have their minds made up just days after the conventions, if not before that. I believe that it is tactics such as these that create disinterest in the electoral process and create voters that allow the election to become a popularity contest, where baby kissing or what kind of pet someone owns truly makes a difference in who the nation decides should rule an entire branch of the government for the next four years. It is this kind of campaigning that has made words like elitist a dirty word, the climate in which being elite (elite: a person or group of people who are considered to be the best in a particular category or group) doesn’t pander to the more traditional values of American politics which includes racism, fear, gossip, and appearing as though you came straight out of a American folk tale. I won't claim to have the answers, but isn't it time that voters prove to the government that we aren't as dumb as they suppose, and that we won't continue to tolerate hate and lies as acceptable methods of campaigning. If there is any truth in the Houston Chronicle's poll, maybe we aren't ready to say that as a nation, but I am, and I don't think I'm alone.

The McCain Attacks on Obama are Going a Little Too Far...

Synchronized Debating

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

"Terrorist"

According to an e-mail from the Obama campaign this is the new mailer the McCain campaign in sending out. "Terrorist." Strong words. This is some pretty dirty campaigning. The way the McCain campaign has manipulated the dialogue and the perceptions of the undecided voters is frightening. I find it frustrating when voters / citizens can see this kind of manipulation and blatant lying and then think it's still ok to vote for someone who does this (though no one is innocent of course), that this kind of manipulation of information wouldn't be taking place in everything that was being done in the White House, it's inconceivable to me to figure out just how someone thinks that this kind of lying is completely separate from other kinds. That there is no reason to fear a politician like this when they have power because these are separate things.

These are not separate things.

This is politics, in the White House, or on the way to the White House. This attempt to manipulate the way I think is infuriating, it makes me crazy. Why would you notice this and then support someone who you catch being deceptive, trying to manipulate the way you think?

Look Familiar?

Videos

See more Hayden Panettiere videos at Funny or Die

Point, Counterpoint, Point

In case you haven't read a frustrated post on here called Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything, David Luke Doody (responses are posted at his blog This Is How I Love You) and I are having a battle in which we agree, but somehow disagree in some abstract way that no one really understands. Here is what has happened some far, followed by the latest counterpoint:

Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything

It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.

Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson


Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.

But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.

The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.

The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody


Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.

I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.

This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.

From Article One of the Constitution:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson

New Ideas? Anyone?

It seems as though the Republican mantra of trickle down economics is something that we are sticking resiliently to. The notion that giving $700 billion dollars to Wall Street is going to, in turn, trickle down to the mythical “main street” both McCain and Biden have spoken of in debates. But where is the evidence of this working? Certainly not anywhere in the last 9 to 10 years. The parallel of our times to the Great Depression has been omnipresent, both in straight comparison of the economic downturn and when the comparison has been shrugged off, like McCain’s former advisor calling American’s a nation of whiners, invoking the Great Depression as something we couldn’t fathom.

Yet, looking back at one of the nation’s darkest economic times seems entirely relevant to a country where relatively few people remain from that difficult era. It was not a trickle down effect that led America out of the Depression (though war, in the end, didn’t hurt either). FDR’s New Deal policies never took the stance that a trickle down was an option, that there was time to watch the money trickle at all. The New Deal policies held it most important to get money in the hands of the middle and lower classes first. To allow the, um, steam to rise…I’m not exactly sure what to call this, but I guess that’s the only way I know that water rises.

Putting systems in place, such as social security, and using the government to temporarily employee citizens while they assisted in making the country a better place were policies that attacked a number of the nation’s problems at once. With Bush’s approval rating in danger of falling far below 30%, and congress at dismal 15% (who knows where Cheney is, what the percentage for 40 people in the country?) it seems more than reasonable to suggest that it is this kind of multi-pronged policy that is necessary to pull the nation out of this turmoil, to let the steam rise.

Obama has promised change relentlessly, but as the election lumbers forward his policies seem to be inching closer to centrist than ever before. Election years are notorious for making centrists out of the most earnest reformers, because that’s politics, policies can change; once the votes are cast they are cast. But isn’t it time for America to take on some bold new ideas, because whatever is happening now, isn’t working. Unemployment is at an all time low, the stock market has bottomed out in the past couple of weeks, increasing amounts of corruption are being unveiled on Wall Street, gas prices are at all time highs, the government is about to offer fiscal assistance to Wall Street while the housing market is collapsing, global warming is taking place at an alarmingly fast rate, parts of the country are still in need of repair from a hurricane that hit over three years ago, our president and congress are universally disliked, America is more unpopular than ever abroad, oh, and there are those two wars we are still involved in.

Obama once taunted Senator McCain’s adaptation of his “change” slogan saying, “Change isn't about slogans. It's about substance.” How about some substance? How about we implement a program that employees the growing number of unemployed whose jobs are being outsourced because of loose tax regulations, who are loosing their homes because of loose oversight on shady mortgages, who are loosing their social security and retirement funds due to poor oversight and the market crash? It’s no coincidence that some of the best policies still in place for the middle class were implemented by FDR. If the government helped the middle class to get back on their feet by assisting the country in rebuilding crumbling infrastructure such as old bridges and levees in disrepair, if they could help housing developments in urban centers go green to offset fears about global warming and the increased burden of gas prices on the lower class, wouldn’t that help everyone? Wouldn’t the steam rise?

With that increased income in their bank account maybe the bank wouldn’t have to close and they have some dispensable income that they might invest, or just try to clothe their families with, maybe they could keep up on their mortgages and not lose their homes because of laws that were loosened during the Clinton administration that had lasted from the original New Deal.

To some this might sound like Socialism. But desperate times call for some new ideas, and after Friday night’s presidential debate and last night’s abysmal vice presidential debate I’m tired of hearing the same old centrist banter, name-calling, and partisan politics. I’d like to hear some new ideas from a leader. I’d like to see them throw some water on the smouldering remains of the reigning policies of trickle down economics, so that the steam can rise.

Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything

It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.

Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.