Topic: election news
Ah, late summer in 1968. Oh, it's 2008 and we're still having 60's-esque dischord? The Dmocrats gathered in Denver, follwed by the Republican coven meeting in St. Paul. Both cities saw their share of protests, and both cities were plagued by overzealous "law" enforcement arresting those bold enough to excercise their First Amendment rights. I know of at least one case in each city where SWAT teams raided homes and confiscated signs and/or sign making material. Journalists covering protests in St. Paul were among those earlier arrested this week.
As for the conventions themselves, the only thing unexpected that happened was scaled-back Republican festivities caused by a hurricane a thousand miles away. Much to the relief of most attendees I'm sure, Bush and Cheney canceled their appearances in Minnesota to be with the hurricane victims along the Gulf Coast. They didn't get my memo to show up early and stick around for the storm. I really feel for those folks down there. Not only did they lose everything (again), but now they have Bush and Cheney hanging around them. Now on with the analysis!
The Democrats
The party that was unable/unwilling to take on Bush and was too inept to field a candidate who could beat him is now tryng to convince us that they can and should lead America. Based on the fact that they ran and won in 2006 on the promise to get us out of Iraq I don't trust the Ass Party to do anything good for this country. Their thinking is that liberal policies will undo the last 8 years when what we really need is a truly conservative fiscal and foreign policy, a liberal social policy, and leave everyone alone.
During the nomination roll call a motion was put forth to suspend the count and award nomination to Barack Obama. Oddly enough, the motion was put forth by none other than Hillary Clinton. How democratic! I heard a rumor that had they done the actual count, Obama wouldn't have had enough delegates to win it on the first ballot. In front of over 80,000 people Obama delivered his acceptance speech. As usual, lots of pretty words that mean nothing came out of his mouth.
In his speech, he sums up the problems facing America today, and realizes that not all of them are caused by government action. But the government wasn't responsive enough. Apparently he fails to realize the connection between government help and things getting worse, and that most of the time constitutionally the government CAN'T help.
In an uncharcteristic statement for a Democrat, he acknowledges we have freedom to make our own lives AND must repspect others. I find this amazing because the liberals are known for wanting us to live in their little nanny state.
He then contradicts his message of "hope" (hope for what we may never know) by saying that while government can't solve our problems it should do what we can't do ourselves. Namely, government should protect us from harm (there's the nanny state again), educate our children (how did anyone ever learn anything before the government came along?), and invest in new schools, new roads, and new science and technology. Education is NOT an enumerated power given to the federal government by the Constitution. It is and should be an entirely local matter. And who says we aren't capable of educating our kids? Thousands of homeschoolers seem to be doing better than the government-run schools. BUidling news roads is great. As long as it falls within the interstate commerce clause. Investing in new science and technology? Necessity is the mother of invention, not government interference.
To rid us of our dependence on foreign oil, Obama will spend $150 billion of your money to invest in energy. Shouldn't it be up to the energy companies?
Back to education, Obama will invest more in early childhood education and recruit new teachers, and pay them more so we can provide a world-class education for our kids. I thought it was up to the school districts to hire and pay teachers. But paying teachers more money doesn't mean better results. Everyone seems to think teachers are to blame for our education system being broken. I'm young enough to remember thata lot of times it's the kids who just don't want to learn. However, in order to address that problem we need to realize that our precious little babies aren't perfect and may be to blame for something.
Moving on to healthcare, he would make sure everyone has it. If you already have insurance, he can lower your premium! If not, he'll get you the same great benefits that Congress gets. Where is it written that government can set the price for a service like insurance? How will he lower your premium? And if you're old enough to remember a time before health insurance, you may recall that care was better quality and more affordable.
So how do we pay for all this ambitious social reform? Simple. He'll cut your taxes and also close the corporate tax loopholes. And by eliminating programs that don't work (the entire federal budget?) and streamlining those that do, we'll save enough money to balance the budget. Huh? A Democrat who wants to eliminate some programs and cut funding for others? Am I dreaming? And did anyone else notice that Obama-Biden looks a lot like Osama bin Laden?
It sounds like a wonderful plan, and I "hope" we can have all these thing Obama has the audacity to dream about, but without all the government strings attached. That would be "change" we can live with.
The Republicans
All the focus during the primary season was on how divided the Democrats were but there was little talk of a rift in the Republicans. Sure, every time a a candidate dropped out he'd throw his support to John McCain, but over a million followers of Ron Paul will refuse to vote for McCain. Most are split between Obama, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr. This can only hurt the Republicans in what is expected to be a close election, and the party is making no overtures to win these voters back. Far from welcoming them into "the big tent", they went so far as to exclude Paul from a speaking role at the convention while other candidates who dropped out early, like Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani got prime speaking slots. The White Elephant Party seems to be shooting itself in the foot by turning away from its traditional values and shunning those who still hold those values.
That said, by endorsing McCain the party seems to be embracing the failed policies of a president with a 25% approval rating. Let them eat cake! McCain is a third Bush term, and by chosing Sarah Palin as his running mate he is essentially chosing a female Dick Cheney. Both have the unmarried pregnant daughter (Cheney's had her baby already) and both use their office for political payback- Cheney in the Valerie Plame case, and Palin, firing the head of the Alaska State Police for refusing to fire her sister's husband while they were going through a divorce. Also,Palin takes away McCain's right to criticize Obama'slak of experience.
Palin might have her shortcomings, but she was a strategic choice for McCain. First, he hopes to capture the Hillary Clinton vote. Second, he assumes guys will do anything for a pretty face. Third, he is wildly unpopular in Alaska, a Republican stronghold. By chosing Alaska's governor as his running mate he's working hard for their 3 electoral votes. Something to counteract Obama getting Delaware. Now, onward to the convention!
I guess I missed the part where Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee released their pledge delegates. During the roll call, Romney had 5 votes. It looked like it might be shaping up to be a surprise nomination for someone other than McCain as state after state deferred voting. Usually when a state defers it's because the pledged delegates don't want to vote for the candidate they are pledged to until whatever round of voting when they have free choice. Even McCain's home state of Arizona deferred. But then when it came around to the second round of voting almost every vote was for McCain. That large group of Paul supporters failed to materialize in the balloting.
McCain's acceptance speech wasn't as eloquent as Obama's, of course. It began as a Bush lovefest, as the entire convention was supposed to be until Hurricane Gustav changed things. He's on our side, fighting for our futures! Does that mean Obama is plotting against us? He says he is the agent of change. Keep in mind, while he and Obama both want "change" what they really mean is the change in your pocket.
Once again, we got the reminder that he's a maverick! So is Palin. They stand up to the party, they fight corruption....yet remain silent when Bush rips the Constitution. He emphasized our need to win the war in Iraq. The same war that saw "mission accomplished" years ago. Who are we fighting in Iraq? People who will stop killing us once we leave.
Despite not even acknowledging Paul and his attempt to lead the party back to its roots, he perhaps is reaching out in his next remark: getting the party back to basics. Don't bet on it. Here's what he says the party believes in: low taxes, spending discipline, open markets, rewarding hard work and risk (he never did say anything about letting anyone lose on a gamble), strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, rule of law (except party rules), impartial judges. Sounds like what Paul has been sayng for 30 years.
Next, he stated that the government doesn't make choices for you but makes sure you have choices. Once again sounding like Paul. Then, he starts to sound like a Democrat. He wants to help the unemployed find and keep jobs. When someone in a hard-hit industry gets a lower paying job, he wants to make up the pay difference.
Education-wise, he wants to shake up the failed school system with competition. Parents should have choice. He didn't say if non-government controlled education should be a choice. In another case of the feds doing the jobs of the locals, he wants to "remove barriers to qualified instructors" (WTF?), attract and reward good teachers, and "help bad teachers find a new line of work."
To solve our energy problem, we need to allow private companies to drill on public land. Now! The government should develop cleaner coal, build nuclear plants, and increase green energy and natural gas. Not the power companies?
Then, the traditional Bush-like trash talk to other countries, particularly Iran and Russia. Russia, like America, invaded a smaller country to gain control over the world oil supply, intimidate its neighbors, and further its imperial ambitions. But Russia is bad, very very bad. Here is America we're virtuous when we do it! Then he started telling war stories.
So after 2 weeks of pomp and circumstance, we have nothing to show for it but jailed protesters (just a few weeks after criticizing China for doing the same) and a couple of identical candidates with identical plans to lead America to complete ruin. Good luck voting!
