Not Sure Who To Vote For?

This editorial is dedicated to Violet Pinto, my grandmother. She suffered a major heart attack and stroke last week, but according to her doctor yesterday, she’s making very good progress. My 88-year-old grandmother is a Democrat, but it’s from her long conversations about politics with me that have shaped my objectivity of America’s political parties. While a lifelong Democrat, she has always been the first one to call them on any political gaffes, shenanigans, or any other dirty handed deed that they have done. And she’s certainly has given an equal blasting at Republicans for doing the same things. This country would be in far better shape if we had more people like her.


Get well soon Grandmum.

The 2008 presidential election is coming to a close and there is much anticipation about the voting results.

And while many voters have already decided which major candidate they will be voting for, many undecided voters are still scratching their heads over which one to choose: Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain or his political rival, Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The die-hard staff of these candidates have been working hard to cater to undecided voters by giving them pamphlets of information about the candidates and telling them which pro-candidate Web sites they should go to for more information.

And while their intentions are honorable, the information that the supporters are giving out about their candidates are biased, dishonest and/or deceitful.

Most of the information and Web sites do not go into great detail about how the candidates plan to get the money to help fund a lot of the spending that they plan on doing, as one example. And let’s not go into how both Obama and McCain have been less than honest with the American public in their attack ads against each other.

Thankfully, there are many Web sites out there that give unbiased information on McCain and Obama. Hopefully, undecided voters will find the following Web sites useful in deciding which candidate will be the best one to lead our great nation.

And always remember this: An informed voter who gets his or her information from objective sources is far more powerful than the voter who only relies on political bias and sound bytes from the candidates.

www.ontheissues.org

www.factcheck.org

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/

www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm

www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

www.votebyissue.org/election2008/

Campaign Ads Discredits
‘Change’ Slogan

For months we have heard Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama saying he is for change for this country. He says that he is not the same as other candidates or politicians in Washington.

And his Republican counterpart, John McCain, has joined the change bandwagon for a while now. After eight years of the Bush Administration, many Americans are not happy where this country is heading and McCain wants to make it clear that he’s not part of the Washington “same old, same old,” group. While he does have a reputation for being a maverick, he has been in Washington for a good number of years too.

But with Obama and McCain trying to desperately convince voters that they are the change this country needs, their actions do not reflect this. Their campaign ads towards each other are just as dirty and underhanded as the countless ones we have seen before in previous election years.

Is this the best our alleged leaders can do? Trash talk about their opponents as if they were running for an elementary school student body election? Can you imagine if you walked into a professional office meeting as a supervisor and start putting down your competitor without offers any real solutions on fixing your company’s product? Any respectable CEO would not allow that type of worker as a supervisor and we should not allow these candidates to act this way either.



But the only way to do that is to stop with the political bias that is so strong with Democratic and Republican supporters. Sure, it’s fine to have party loyalty, but it should not get in the way of fixing the problems that this nation is facing.

And McCain and Obama are their leaders. They should be leading by example, by showing ads and giving speeches that explain in detail how their plans will work and how they will actually change this country for the better. But instead, just like an elementary school student body election, this presidential election, much like others in the past, is very much like a popularity contest.



But let’s be realistic. Many supporters from both parties are too blinded by their candidates to care about the details of fixing this country. For them, a 2-minute sound byte from the local news report is good enough for them and the candidates know this. Essentially, getting elected to be president is as cheap and easy as a McDonald’s ad: Give the people what they think they want in the fastest, simplest way possible.

Which is why it cannot be stressed enough that all voters, regardless of their party affiliation, must demand from their respected candidates to offer the American people something more than a cheap car sale slogan. Yes, researching the candidates’ voting records and any bills they created or sponsored is great and using nonpartisan Web sites is fantastic. But the candidates are making us work too hard to do the job that they are supposed to be doing.

But sadly, this is not how the game is played.

If this is how the game is played in order to win an election, then there is something severely wrong with not only the political process, but also us, the voters, who seem to either tolerate it or are too much in awe of these candidates to care.

Palin Picked Because Of Sex?

Who is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin? She’s basically the counterpart of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Essentially, they’re the same: Very little political experience, both pretty young compared to their older partners and both are minorities, more or less.

Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a calculated risk that just might help him. He selected Palin just because she’s a woman and to attract the good number of Hillary supporters, especially women, who are still bitter that Obama got the Democratic nomination and not Hillary Clinton. Many have already joined McCain’s camp.

But what does Palin offer besides her female attributes? Actually, plenty. She has been elected to a city council, then a mayor and then onto the governor of Alaska. While not having much experience in the big political pond of Washington, D.C., she does have more experience than Obama when it comes to being a leader.

Obama has been in the Illinois Senate and a U.S. Senator, where he represented the people. Palin has held positions where she has led the people. That means that people voted for Palin to be their leader, which is a bigger responsibility than electing someone to represent you.

She has certainly worked very hard on the state level and even upset fellow Republicans when it was not in the best interest of the party. While appointed chairwoman of the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, she investigated fellow commission chair and Republican Randy Ruedrich about breaking state ethics law. The result was that Ruedrich resigned and that he paid a $12,000 fine.

This and other incidences shows that Palin has what it takes to stand up to her own party in order to do what’s right. Certainly a very courageous talent that is desperately needed in Washington. This should make Republicans and Democrats shake in their boots, because Palin seems to be the type of leader that isn’t going to be intimidated by higher powers and she’ll easily adapt to the big changes that Washington has to offer.

Some have criticized McCain for choosing an inexperienced Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, because he has been attacking Obama on his inexperience. Certainly fair, however the difference is that it’s the experienced McCain who is running to be the president, not the inexperienced Palin. Certainly a big difference and it is an inexperienced Obama who is running for president.

But with her tough-as-nails leadership, even Palin must realize that there is only one reason why McCain picked her over veteran politicians who are more familiar with the goings on of Washington.

The question is: Is Palin OK that McCain is using her sex to help him win female voters and the election? That and many similar sex-base questions are certainly going to bombard the Republican duo and they should be asked. After all, Palin seems almost perfect to counteract a biracial Obama. He will certainly get a lot of the black vote, while Palin can help with getting the women vote.

It does seem to be blatantly obvious why McCain singled out Palin to be his vice presidential running mate and a slick political move. It's clearly a desperate attempt by McCain to unseat Obama's growing chances of winning the White House.

It is a shame that Palin is not solely chosen for her impressive, but limited political leadership. Only time will tell if this was a wise political move on McCain's part come November.

The Biden Factor

The wondering has ceased and the political world cannot stop talking about Barack Obama’s choice to be his vice presidential running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

Many Hillary Clinton supporters are no doubt furious that the presumed Democratic nominee did not choose the New York senator, but it was a calculated maneuver that he had to take. As it has been mentioned before, having a double-minority ticket would be too much for some closed-minded Americans to accept.

In addition, many are already having a hard time swallowing the hypocrisy of having Clinton throwing support to the Illinois senator after hearing from her about how unqualified he is to be president during the long campaign trail.

But sadly, many of us have to deal with a double dose of that hypocrisy, because Biden too has said that Obama does not have what it takes to be president. And that’s not all he said.

“I am not running for vice president,” Biden said at the time, as a Democratic presidential candidate himself, in an August 2007 interview with FOX News. “I would not accept it if anyone offered it to me. The fact of the matter is I’d rather stay as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee than be vice president.”

Of course Biden would take it. Not too many politicians would refuse to have that job title. But that is something that Obama has to be concerned about: Biden’s infamous “running of the mouth.” Who can forget in a February 2007 interview that the Delaware senator said this to his possible future boss?

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man,” Biden said in a New York Observer article. That “openness” created a backlash and it just might cost Obama his chance at the White House.

However, Biden does have a lot to offer as vice president because of his long history of being in the Senate. And his liberal voting record may help Hillary supporters swallow the bitter pill that Obama picked someone else, but who does mirror Clinton’s views.

Biden’s experience will clearly help Obama’s inexperience and he can certainly guide him on important issues. But this grandfatherly portrayal just might magnify Obama’s inability to lead this nation.

Only time will tell if Obama made a wise choice in Biden.

Yet, Obama seems to be one step ahead of his Republican counterpart, John McCain. The Arizona senator is expected to announce his own vice presidential running mate soon, but Obama made sure he beat him to the punch by doing it first. It shows that Obama is more organized than McCain and the Democratic Duo has already politically attacked him.

McCain will have to make a quick recovery and wisely choose his partner if he hopes to overcome an Obama-Biden ticket in November.

McCain’s Sleazy Campaign Ads

Recently, Paris Hilton created her own ad to counterattack presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s ad that compared the heiress and celebrity with his political foe.

Yes, McCain has launched some sleazy ads against his Democratic presumed presidential counterpart, Barack Obama. Because of certain things that Obama has said, McCain had campaign ads that linked the Illinois Senator with airhead celebrities or is the next political Messiah.

And yes, these campaign ads are sleazy and tactless. Sadly, they do not begin and end with John McCain. All politicians from both sides of the political aisle enjoy launching their attack ads at their opponents.

But who is it really for? Are these ads for die-hard political supporters with their rose-colored glasses locked on? It’s only these people who usually eat up these ads, but where does it leave the rest of us who are looking beyond these political shenanigans and want real substance from the people who want to be our next president?

People like us would rather have McCain and Obama spend their money more wisely by telling us what their plans are for this country with its crumbling economy and facing a global terror war. But instead, they would rather childishly criticize each other than offer real solutions to the problems we face.

And the real sad part is that Paris Hilton made more sense in her mock campaign ad than either McCain or Obama in their attempts to fix the oil crisis.

Paris Hilton For President - Wait What?!!

But no, that does not appear to be what these candidates are after. As one reader told me in the last presidential election while I was an editor of a newspaper, “It seems as if the candidates spend more time telling us how bad the other guy is.”

And that’s exactly right. Last week we had Obama falsely accusing McCain and President Bush of planning on using racial scare tactics and offered no real proof of them doing it. And McCain has been telling us that a star-struck Obama would not make a good president.

If candidates are unwilling to give voters more informative campaign ads that tell us how they are going to make their plans work for Americans, than at the very least, stop with the tasteless attack ads. By doing so, these candidates insult our intelligence.

NY Times Attacks McCain
For Defending Himself

I want to say this burns my bacon, but to be honest, it explodes it.

The New York Times’ editorial board wrote an opinion piece about Barack Obama accusing John McCain and President Bush of using or planning on using racial scare tactics. But while many would think that they would go after Obama, they instead attack John McCain for firing back at Obama’s false accusations.

First, they claim that McCain’s attack ad of comparing Obama with drunken celebrity Britney Spears was a “racially tinged attack” on the Illinois senator. How they make this great leap of illogic, The New York Times makes a weak case for it.

While there has been no real evidence that McCain has or will use race against Obama, The New York Times decides to paint him guilty of racial attacks anyway by associating the Arizona senator with a few dirty Republicans who allegedly used a racial attack on black Senator candidate Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. The ads against Ford “juxtaposed” him with white women, according to The New York Times.

However, the only ad that I could find that’s against Ford isn’t a racial attack at all and it’s still a weak comparison with McCain’s ad, because if you’re going to sleazily compare a presidential candidate with an airhead celebrity, who better than Britney Spears? It seems like a good case of The New York Times seeing things that aren’t there.

Is John McCain's political ad a racial attack against Obama? The New York Times seems to think so.

And instead of attacking Obama for his obvious and false racial assault on not only McCain but President Bush, The New York Times goes after McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis when he defensively said, “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.”

Now, it’s interesting that The New York Times doesn’t have a problem with, “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” but they’re having kittens over what Davis said.

Because according to The New York Times, Davis’ statement conjures up a “loaded racial image” of Robert Shapiro during the famous O.J. Simpson murder case when he said, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”

But isn’t that what Obama did? He blatantly played that card and it was from the bottom of the deck because it was a low thing to do to accuse our nation’s president and another politician of using racial scare tactics and don’t offer any solid proof.

The New York Times not only kicked John McCain when he was down after being falsely accused of being a racist by his political opponent, but they stomped on him for trying to defend himself from Obama’s baseless attacks.

It’s bad enough that they turn a blind eye against Obama’s despicable statements, but they also made a feeble argument that McCain will use racial attacks simply because he is guilty by association because of what fellow Republicans allegedly did in Tennessee.

This sadly certainly gives credence to what many McCain supporters have been saying about Obama: He’s a Teflon candidate that the media simply loves too much to be objective with.

But more importantly, The New York Times just destroyed its own credibility when they attacked the victim and not the attacker.

Obama: McCain Will
Use Racial Tactics

In a speech yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama said his opponent Sen. John McCain and his fellow Republicans will use scare tactics on voters to persuade them not to vote for him, including racial ones.

“So what (President Bush and McCain are) going to try to do is make you scared of me,” said the presumed Democratic presidential nominee to a crowd in Springfield, Mo., Wednesday, as reported by the Associated Press. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

It is extremely disgraceful that Obama would make a false claim that McCain and our own President would use racial fear during the campaign even though there has been no evidence of either one of them, or other elected Republican officials, of doing that.

And if they did do that, it would be all over the news and right here. Does anyone honestly think that McCain or Bush, or any other type of politician, would commit political suicide by even barely mentioning Obama’s mixed heritage as a reason for not voting for him?

And what’s hypocritical is that while Obama is allegedly saying that McCain will be using race to his own advantage, Obama is doing the same thing by saying these false allegations.

This is a disgusting display of dirty politics at one of its lowest forms. How can Obama even say such a thing and he does not even bat an eye when he’s doing the same thing himself?

The Times Observer has written many editorials and columns in defense of Obama when he has been racially attacked. So there is a good record of sticking up for him when it was just, however, this time there is no defense for him when he accuses our President and his fellow presumed presidential opponent of racial attacks while there is no proof of either of them doing so.

It’s common for politicians during an election to flip-flop on positions, to make false allegations against their political foes and use just about every clean and dirty trick in the book to win votes.

However, to actually accuse an opponent and the President of the United States of America of saying that they are going to use a person’s race against him is extremely low.

It makes one wonder why politicians even bother to make such repulsive, groundless statements to begin with, since they are usually called on them and shown them to be a lie or untrue. Perhaps they do it just to win over voters and make a grand impression on them and in this case, get a pity vote.

For someone who keeps saying that “change” is needed for D.C., Obama again shows that he’s acting like a typical politician out for votes and it would be hard for his supporters to refute his shameful attack on McCain and President Bush without real evidence of them using race against the Senator.

And what’s more important, how can Obama bridge the racial divide in this country when his false attacks like this further spread it?

McCain’s Illegal Immigration
Legislation May Hurt
White House Bid

Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain is taking some hits recently for legislation that would basically give 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. amnesty.

The controversial piece of legislation stalled last year and in addition to giving people who broke the law citizenship, it proposes to also tighten the very loose Mexican border and a guest-worker program.

McCain, who cosponsored this legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy, has been heavily criticized by many and rightly so.

He is giving a free pass to people who broke international laws to come to this country. On top of it, many of these illegal aliens have robbed and murdered our own citizens. Why in the world would McCain want to give what amounts to amnesty to these types of criminals?

Furthermore, this will set a precedence to criminals who break laws. If we don’t punish illegal immigrants for their crimes, then what type of criminal won’t we punish next? Drug dealers who only push marijuana? Kidnappers who only hold their victims less than 24 hours? Murderers who only kill one person?

These examples may seem ridiculous, but let’s remember that 10 years ago many people and politicians would have laughed at the idea of giving illegal immigrants a reprieve for breaking the law.

And while the majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, there are many from different countries. While the U.S. is facing a global war on terror, one would think that McCain would be pushing for tougher legislation to combat these lawbreakers instead of giving them a free ride and hope that they’re not here to blow up some buildings.

Every day across this nation, thousands of people from different countries and cultures are working hard to actually become citizens of this great country of ours or to stay here legally. It would be a huge slap in the face to them and our forefathers who have worked so hard just to be here and carve a new life out for themselves.

McCain’s legislation is the tip of a very slippery slope for the American judicial system. It should make voters give a minute to pause and consider what type of man who wants to be president of the United States and to uphold her laws, but also wants to allow illegal aliens the right to break them.

And Then There Was Truly One …

Presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain can breathe a little easier now that fellow GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has finally quit the race.

It is a sign of relief for McCain, because the U.S. representative from Texas could have pulled a Ralph Nader and ran as an independent, stealing precious votes away from the Arizona senator.

And he would have given McCain a run for his money. Granted, Paul was failing to achieve the same level of supporters, delegates or donations that McCain has, but according to the Associated Press, Paul “raised large amounts of money online and developed a huge grass-roots following.”

In addition, in an open letter to supporters, Paul stated he gained “1.1 million votes in the primaries.” He didn’t win a state, but that’s a number that’s hard to ignore.

While Paul should have stepped out of the race a long time ago, we should not write him off. He struck a cord with a great many Americans, especially Libertarians, Democrats, and independents, who became disenfranchised with the Iraq war, big government spending and what they feel is the desecration of the Constitution. And let’s not forget Republicans who joined Paul's flock.

This is a man who throughout his long political career has stuck to his guns on issues that even his fellow Republican leaders wished would go away. Paul brought up issues that many wanted buried and pointed an accusatory finger at anyone, including fellow GOP members, who were not standing right by Americans.

America has lost out on not having a man with Ron Paul’s integrity in the White House, but Ron Paul has not given up on America. Despite his huge defeat by McCain, Paul has decided to create the “Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.” He plans to educate Americans about various topics, like free markets and non-interventionism, and will support candidates that share his political views.

And while he lost the political race, Paul is not giving up on who he is. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who gave her full endorsement to presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama, Paul refuses to endorse McCain because he does not think the senator is the best choice for America.

Like him or not, you have to admire this man for his gumption. America could use a good dose of reality from a politician like Paul.

Happy Birthday Dear Hitler … Oops!

We have seen many candidates commit political suicide during an election year, from Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain singing his own version of the Beach Boys’ song, called “Bomb Iran,” to his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton saying if there is a terror attack before the election, the Republicans would win the White House.

But what Indiana congressional candidate Republican Tony Zirkle did really takes the cake.

Zirkle not only gave a speech in Chicago about the targeting of young white women and pornography and prostitution to a group of neo-Nazis, but he stood in front of a picture of Adolf Hitler on Sunday, April 20, the day of the Führer’s birthday, reported the Northwest Indiana Times.

Is it important to mention that those who attended this closing-of-the-minds birthday bash were wearing swastika armbands and that there was a swastika flag in the background? (And yes, it was a birthday party, since there were letters stringed together to say “Happy Birthday” on main table in front of Zirkle as he was giving his speech.)

Now, in his defense, Zirkle said he gave the speech because he was invited by the American National Socialist Workers Party and to prove he isn’t a racist, he mentioned that he spoke on a black radio station in Atlanta.

It’s just a shame that this paper-thin excuse of an explanation doesn’t stand up to the fact that back in March of this year, Zirkle suggested that segregation between blacks and whites might solve a lot of problems.

Of course, many Republicans rightly denounced Zirkle. Sure, many candidates try to carry certain groups. For example, Sen. Barack Obama is trying to sway black voters in the South, while Clinton is trying to woo women voters. And McCain is trying to entice conservatives.

That’s normal for politicians to do and it doesn’t smack of being prejudice because they don’t normally speak to a group of people like the American National Socialist Workers Party.

But to actually have the nerve and speak to a small bunch of ignorant people who worship a ruthless, genocidal madman in the year 2008 has to be the biggest political mistake ever made.

Zirkle should be given the political equivalent of the Darwin Award, because he just did this country a great service by committing political suicide. Stick a swastika-embroidered fork in Zirkle, he’s done!

Thank God For PA’s Primary!

Tomorrow will be Pennsylvania’s primary and many residents of the Keystone State will be grateful to see the end of the six weeks of political mud-flinging between the two Democratic juggernauts.

And that’s what it’s been. It’s been negative comments or ads relentlessly between Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In fact, a day before the primary, the two are still hell-bent to criticize the other.

We in Pennsylvania should be thankful that former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee quit the race, or we would have to endure twice the political attacks from him and the GOP’s virtually nominated candidate John McCain.

And not only is it bad enough that Hillary and Obama are disgustingly and pathetically attacking each other, but their supporters and fellow Democratic leaders are waist-deep in the mud.

These pointless attacks are only good for the die-hard supporters in the choir, who only nod their heads in agreement. For the rest of us who are looking for real answers to solving the very real problems this nation is facing, the blame game that politicians love to play is filling us with disgust.

These politicians, who are basically begging people to let them have the job of Commander-in-Chief, are so busy saying how the other candidate is no good that they don’t even bother telling us voters what their plans are for this country and how they are going to make those plans work.

It’s easy to say things like, “This country is in need of change,” but slogans like that are just slogans. These are empty promises for either gullible supporters or for those so desperate for real changes that anything sounds good to them.

And it’s hard to figure out the whole truth from them because they have been caught in so many lies, even the smallest ones. For example, in Obama’s TV ad, where the Illinois senator says he doesn’t accept money from oil companies, he fails to tell the audience that it’s against the law to do so. Or when New York Senator Clinton tried to buff up her image by saying she was under sniper fire, but really wasn’t.

Obama’s and Clinton’s eyes are so focused on the White House prize that they see right pass voters and the problems plaguing this country. And many of their, or even the Republicans’, die-hard supporters, with their rose-colored glasses, are also blind to the plight of America that they are not helping by attacking one another or the candidates with such vileness.

For those who are still undecided over who to vote for in tomorrow’s Pennsylvania’s primary, whether it’s Clinton, McCain, Obama or Republican candidate Ron Paul, then it’s best to seek answers from nonpartisan sources, such as Factcheck.org or OnTheIssues.org.

Voters who are not swayed by emotional political speeches, power or images and vote based on facts alone are the ones truly interested in change for this country, which says a lot (or less in this case) about some of the presidential candidates and their devious conduct to gain votes.

Vote wisely tomorrow Pennsylvania, because tomorrow depends on it.

Obama’s Arrogance, Bill’s Stupidity

It hasn’t been a good week for either of the two Democratic presidential juggernauts.

Just Friday it was reported that Sen. Barack Obama basically called small-town Pennsylvanians uneducated rednecks because they don’t know how to express their frustrations with the government, so they hold religion and guns close while shunning away immigrants.

And later this week, former President Bill Clinton decided to “help” his wife by reopening the old Bosnia wound. If that wasn’t enough, he even got the facts wrong and he admitted to the public that Hillary told him to shut up about it. Talk about a henpecked husband, which only further portrays the female presidential candidate as an ice queen.

But getting back to the more important issue, what is really interesting is that earlier this month Obama was trying to woo over gun owners by waving the constitutional rights flag, but not telling them his misfiring voting record. But then he tells some rich donors in San Francisco that small-town Pennsylvanians are backwoods people and how they feel that the government has failed them.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said, as reported by The Huffington Post.

Now, this is wrong on many levels. One, it’s hypocritical of him to even mention how people seek religion for guidance, considering the controversy between himself and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And Obama is still dusting himself off from that political debacle.

But two, Obama is stereotyping these Pennsylvanians, which is supposed to be a huge no-no for liberals and Democrats, unless that’s stereotyping too.

In addition, he’s basically describing these Pennsylvanians as single-minded people who don’t understand the issues that this country is facing.

The Times Observer has always provided support for Obama when he was unjustly attacked, but in this case, the Illinois senator has not only made a hole for himself with Pennsylvania voters that he is trying to win over, but has opened himself up for attacks by Hillary and the likely Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.

Courting the gun vote should be one of the huge priorities for any Democratic presidential candidate if he or she hopes to win any political race. After all, in recent years Democrats are viewed as being against the Second Amendment.

And respecting how one embraces religion should be a cake walk for even a first year politician. But insulting one’s way of life will reasonably make that voter get down on his knees and take aim at Obama.

It’s Time To Pack It Up, Boys

Like that drunk guy at a party who doesn’t know it’s time to go home, that pretty much sums up presidential candidates Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. And in many respects, let’s throw in Ralph Nader as well.

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee had the good grace to bow out last night. He was clearly not even close to gaining the delegates that John McCain was able to secure to getting the GOP’s nomination.

But fellow Republican candidate Ron Paul does not want to give up his bid for the White House, even though he hasn’t even come close to second place, much less first. And that’s a shame because Paul was the type of no nonsense candidate who told it like it is and offered real plans, instead of pie-in-the-sky remedies that many love to serve up. It’s that type of gumption that has given him a small but devoted support. Sadly, that support wasn’t enough to allow the Texas congressman to win the Lone Star State, one of many states that McCain snagged away.

And Paul’s Democratic counterpart, Mike Gravel, can’t escape the duo-eclipse of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. There is no evading them, no matter what Gravel supporters might think. Just like Paul, Gravel has not even come close to winning second place. And it seems that he can’t capture the type of support that Paul has been able too. Also, what’s even more embarrassing is that neither CNN, nor FOX News, refuse to even acknowledge him when showing their primary recap poll.

Then we have Ralph Nader, the independent candidate. He wants to change America, which is great but there must be a better way than wasting supporters’ time, energy and money every four years by running a losing campaign. Here’s a hard truth to Nader and his supporters: The American public told Ralph four times that they don’t want him for president! How can a guy not take a hint if he’s only running because he honestly thinks he’s going to win?

Sure, Americans admire the underdog and this is what these three gentlemen ultimately are. And some of the best underdogs have won but sometimes, they lose too. I don’t see these underdogs having their day. What becomes admiration for campaigning against top players like McCain, Obama and Clinton quickly becomes embarrassment if they don’t have the delegates, financial support or major voter turnout. Or not coming close to winning the presidential election four times in a row.

But there is no telling that to the diehard supporters of these three. Some have said that while they won’t win the presidential election, they do bring important issues to light and force the more popular candidates to address them. That sounds like a ready-made acknowledgment that their candidate is going to lose spectacularly but won’t admit it to themselves. Denial can be an ugly thing in politics.

But bringing up important issues is a great thing but running a no-win campaign and raising false hopes in supporters usually makes them look like a joke to the majority of Americans. If they truly want to bring awareness to unspoken issues, then they need to find a better alternative.

And there comes a time when the supporter has to ask the question if it’s wise to even vote for a candidate who is losing badly. The standard reply to that is that these die-hard hopefuls want change from the traditional Democrat/Republican top candidates. We can all see that. But why vote for change if the candidate has better odds of hitting the lottery than becoming president? Here’s another hard truth that supporters have to accept: There really is such a thing as throwing your vote away.

But hey, it’s a free country and one can do that. But it might be wise to actually support and vote for a third-party candidate (and at this point, Gravel and Paul are basically that since neither one is likely to get the nomination) who is strong in the polls, has backing and might have a good chance of winning.

Because if a candidate doesn’t have those three crucial ingredients for winning, and let’s use Nader as an example, then this paraphrase of the popular saying will be true: “A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.”

It might be best that since these three have great political experience that they might actually work with Congress or organizations that have real pull in Washington and work for change that way.

Because if the only desire to run for the White House is to spread the issues, then running a campaign into the ground with little to no media attention isn’t working. And preaching to the choir only goes so far. There are better ways of doing it boys but if there is no national support like the type that McCain or Clinton has, it’s time to pack it in and think of a better approach.

A Recap Before Tomorrow’s Primaries

It’s interesting to see how Senators Clinton and Obama are handling themselves today, as they are gearing up for tomorrow’s primary.

Granted, many potential voters have expressed their disgust over the mud flinging that the two have caused. It’s a shame that those two can’t put more effort of telling the people what they plan to actually do for America instead of coming up with creative ways of bashing each other over the heads like two monkeys fighting over a banana.

And all eyes are on these two Democratic giants, who have been in a dead heat. They have captured the limelight so well that it has cast a long, dark shadow over the lesser-known Democratic candidate, Mike Gravel.

However, the Republicans have their own candidate, who has a strong grassroots support, and that’s Ron Paul. While he’s low in the polls, he has snagged quite a few voters who are disgusted with the shenanigans of the current political figures. Sadly, he’s one of the few candidates who actually tells the American public what his plans are instead of wasting his time and pointing his finger at somebody else on national television.

Another Republican who knows that his chances are far better than Paul’s is Mike Huckabee, but he too can’t seem to escape John McCain’s juggernaut status as GOP front-runner. And since McCain is far closer to getting his party’s nomination than Huckabee, one must question how practical it is for the former Arkansas governor to continue running.

And speaking about not being practical, the only independent who has caused Obama and Clinton to quake in their shoes is none other than Ralph Nader. In fact, he seems to be the only “issue” the two seem to agree on. Sure, Nader’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination is about as likely as Rush Limbaugh’s but if he continues his run after the Democratic Convention, he will be stealing precious votes.

So, keep your eyes glued to the news tonight and see how these candidates act before tomorrow’s primary. Maybe we’ll see Hillary Clinton choking back a few tears just to show how human she is or maybe we’ll see Huckabee pull a rabbit out of his hat. But with the drama of politics, sometimes it’s impossible to predict what is going to happen but it sure is fun to watch.

McCain A Better Uniter
Than Clinton, Obama

After the last bits of confetti have been cleaned up and chairs put back in their places, Super Tuesday was one hell of a party. But only one politician came out as the most recognizable winner and that’s Arizona’s Sen. John McCain.

And it’s clear too. A full day after Super Tuesday, people are talking about John McCain. At the moment, he is the leading Republican presidential candidate, beating former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

McCain’s Super Tuesday victory clearly shows he knows how to beat his rivals and maybe it’s time New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Ill. Sen. Barack Obama take a leaf from McCain’s political playbook.

Sure, all three of these candidates have been involved with heavy mudslinging with their opponents and only die-hard supporters eat that stuff up. For those of us who would rather have something of substance, we have to wait patiently in our wading boots and dodge the mud. And just like fishing, with great perseverance, we will catch a few words of inspiration and a plan to not only protect our nation but steer it out of the economic mess that it has found itself in.

McCain obviously has a message that Republicans can follow and embrace, while Obama and Clinton may not have that same unifying message if Democratic voters overwhelmingly could not decide on which one they could wholeheartedly support. And this has been the Democrats major downfall in the last few years.

With the many faults Republicans have, they can at least come together and support a single candidate. Sure, it still too early to say that McCain will get the nomination but he won more than half of the delegates. That really says something. Because the same can’t be said about Obama or Clinton. It’s still too close to call and it seems that Democrats are willing to choose a person who is the most electable. And how wise is that?

It certainly didn’t work when Democrats chose Sen. John Kerry to try to beat President Bush back in 2004. Democrats had been falling all over themselves in finding ways to beat Bush during the 2004 campaign.

After all, President Bush embarrassingly beat Al Gore in 2000 and the Democrats wanted to beat him in 2004 and get the White House, which they thought was rightfully theirs in the first place. In their desperate attempt, they selected Kerry, who during the campaign could not unite a number of Democrats since many jumped ship and decided to vote for Bush instead.

Now history is repeating itself and what’s worse, Democrats can’t decide which one to choose, Obama or Clinton. And that speaks volumes of Obama’s and Clinton’s abilities to be uniters.

Sure, there are many factors that go into why a candidate is either leading in the polls or is nearly tied with an opponent. But the number one factor that is most critical is the message and being able to bring a party together. Simply put, neither Clinton nor Obama can bring Democrats together if the voters cannot ultimately decide on which one of them to choose.

The two have been focusing on each other for so long that they failed to notice how McCain’s message united Republicans on Super Tuesday. It seems that they are more dividers than uniters and it was certainly apparent on Tuesday. The question now is: Is it too late to become a McCain for the Democratic Party?

Why I Disagree But Respect John McCain

Now I’m the first one to admit that I blasted John McCain last week over his song, “Bomb Iran.” I don’t think that comments like that should be made in a time where there is serious debate about the Iraq war by someone who is seeking a position to lead this country.

That being said, I have to admit, I do respect McCain. Twice already the Arizona Republican presidential candidate has told those who found his singing to be off key or his recent improvised explosive device (IED) joke to Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart to “get a life.” (Yes, pictures of William Shatner telling Star Trek fans the same thing in a Saturday Night Live skit are floating in my head.)

Both the singing and the IED joke did put a smile on my face, I’ll admit that. I don’t think the IED joke to Stewart was all that bad compared to “Bomb Iran,” because it was not a direct “threat” to anyone, unlike the song. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., disagrees.

Why do I respect McCain for telling me and others to get a life? Easy, because he isn’t acting like a spineless politician, that’s why. Many politicians constantly recant their statements so they don’t offend anyone and lose voters, even over the most insignificant things. In fact, most politicians would have apologized the very next day if they sang “Bomb Iran.” Not McCain.

It’s truly a breath of fresh air to see a politician, especially a presidential candidate, not back down over something like this. If someone makes an off-color joke, they’ll apologize and seek spiritual counseling or other such nonsense to make amends and continue to get votes.

Not McCain and that’s why we need more politicians like him. He’s basically telling people to “suck it up and deal with it.” And let’s have a show of hands, how many politicians would have the stones to publicly tell someone that? None. It’s that glimmer of toughness that has served McCain so well in his political career. And he’s going to need it in the coming months.

While I may not agree with McCain’s singing career, I do respect him for telling me and others to get a life. And it certainly is a glimpse of the entertainment that is still to come.

McCain’s Off-Key Iran Song

It seems that John McCain is giving up his day job as presidential candidate and going into the music biz. During a campaign stop, an audience member asked him what should be done about Iran, in which the Republican senator from Arizona broke into song, parodying the Beach Boys’ song "Barbara Ann," with “Bomb Iran.”

Sure, he only sung a lyric of the no-hit wonder song and it certainly brings back memories of a former Democratic presidential candidate’s scream fest. Did McCain forget that Howard Dean’s poll numbers dropped by like 20 points before his beat-red face had a chance to cool down?

Besides giving the funny folks at JibJab something to do, McCain, and any other presidential candidate, has to watch what they say and do. You simply can’t joke about certain things and while it was clever and I have to admit, I did get a little chuckle over it, I don’t think this will hurt McCain, but it will come back to haunt him.

Plus, he is running a mud-flinging race in the hopes of being this country’s leader. Joking about bombing a country, even Iran with its shady deals, is not going to make many Americans breathe easy, especially with the daily killings by insurgents and terrorists in Iraq in the forefronts of everyone’s mind.

People already think that President Bush is half-crazy about war but doing a Brian Wilson-impersonation of bombing Iran is not going to win McCain any points.

(Editor’s Note: Turns out my prediction was right, McCain’s song will come back to haunt him. MoveOn.org plans to run an ad denouncing McCain’s comments and plans on spending $100,000 on a TV commercial that will air in Iowa and New Hampshire, where they hold early contests in the presidential nomination process, according to the AP.)

Originally posted on Friday, July 11, 2008

Voting Goes To The Dogs

Do you know what burns my bacon? Idiot voters who only support a candidate for stupid reasons.

For example, an AP-Yahoo! News poll found that pet owners support presumed Republican Presidential candidate John McCain because he has two dogs, a cat, two turtles, a ferret, three parakeets and a lot of fish. I believe this is known as the Noah Complex.

But on the other side, the poll said that non-pet owners, or also known as “liberators” according to PETA, favor the assumed Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama because of his lack of fuzzy beasts.

What really burns my bacon is what Janet Taylor of Plymouth, Mass., said about this issue.

“I think a person who owns a pet is a more compassionate person ―­­­­ caring, giving, trustworthy. I like pet owners,” she stated.

Who can make that giant leap of illogic? McCain has seven children. In my book, having children trumps having pets. You would think that caring for small human beings would make you more trustworthy and compassionate.

Besides, I don’t have any pets and I would like to get some, but I already have two children. That should count for something. Sure, they don’t go on the carpet or keep me awake at night baying at the moon, but they do make messes and I have to take them for walks. And I just can’t give them to the animal shelter if I get tired of them. Trust me, I’ve tried.

But it’s just not pet owners who may vote for a candidate because they share a need to get licked in the face by an animal that cleans its own testicles with its tongue. My grandmother remembers watching on TV that a woman was going to vote for Dwight Eisenhower just because he had the same operation as her husband.

In fact, columnist Gary Kamiya said he is going to vote for Obama simply because he’s half black.

“I admit it: I’m voting for Barack Obama because he’s black,” Kamiya wrote. “… But if he weren’t black, and Hillary had opposed the war, I’d probably vote for her because of her greater experience.”

Kamiya isn’t the only one who will vote for Obama because of his skin color. And sadly, the opposite is true because many white voters support McCain because of his race. All pretty racist stuff, but interesting how the former seems to be more acceptable than the latter. But that’s a different topic for another day. But it’s not OK to vote for Obama just because he’s black or McCain because he’s white. That’s racist no matter how you slice it.

The point here is that people who vote for a candidate because they have a pet, or have the same operation or even skin color, not to mention being in the same political party, should scare everyone. Because these are not thinking, rational people.

These are people who probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote if they are choosing a candidate to be the most powerful person of the world over trivial things.

It makes you wonder where this country is heading if a voter’s only decision about how qualified a candidate might be is if he carries a pooper scooper. Although, since a candidate is a politician in D.C. with a pooper scooper, it doesn’t necessarily mean he owns a dog.

Originally posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008, at 2:08 a.m.

Dems Using Religion To Shift Focus

Today is the day Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama discover how much their mudslinging and negative ads will help them in the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries.

And Obama supporters, particularly the elected kind, have been trying to help the Illinois senator by battling the Rev. Wright controversy by shifting the focus of Heavenly-prejudiced men of God to Republican (most likely) presidential nominee John McCain and his relationships with bigoted pastors.

There is John Hagee, who said that God brought Hurricane Katrina as a punishment to the residents of New Orleans for homosexual sins. And then there is Rod Parsley, who has called for a war on Islam. And that’s not all of the things these men of God have preached.

The Democrats are saying that McCain got a free pass of media attacks. However, the Arizona senator said that just because Hagee supports his candidacy, it doesn’t mean that he supports or believes in a lot of the things that the pastor says.

As far as Parsley, one of McCain’s campaign aides said that the senator never attended a service by the pastor, unlike Obama, who spent 20 years attending Rev. Wright’s.

As I wrote in my editorial about Obama’s association with Rev. Wright, I’ll say it again in this column: Candidates should not be criticized for their connection with spiritual leaders.

There is no evidence that McCain has ever agreed with the controversial and hateful things that either pastor has said, just like there is no evidence that Obama agreed with the rants of Rev. Wright.

It’s a shame that some religious leaders spew repulsive sermons and pass them along as if they are God’s word. It is even worse that politicians get slammed for their association of these pastors.

Politicians shouldn’t be criticized over who endorses them or the ramblings of pastors that have no direct relationship with them.

Trust me; these 2008 candidates will trip themselves up without the help of anyone else. Their policies and past voting records are fair game for attacks, as well as their relationships with unscrupulous donors and supporters that may have an impact once he or she is in the White House.

But putting them in the crosshairs because of their religious associations? Heaven forgive those for acting petty!