I’ve been following this year’s Presidential elections pretty closely and I’ve got to say, when did we transition from the clean campaigns during primary season to the traditional mudslinging that we see every four years?  It’s a little sickening because with both candidates now advocating changes in the way politics works for the people, aren’t they both reverting back to the same old thing?

(Side-note:  Sorry to all the Republicans out there but the truth is you totally jumped on the Obama bandwagon when you stole his platform.  I guess that is change though.  Change from your platform that wasn’t reaching people to his platform that was.  Ironic, considering you’re trying to “out change” Mr. Change.)

The NY Times, (yes, considered a Liberal paper) wrote about the “stretching of the truth” taken by both campaigns.  I’m glad someone FINALLY said something.  There are just too many 5 second sound bites turned into 40 second ads distorting the reality of the statement.

Yes, that is politics and yes, it’s crunch time in the Presidential race BUT it’s contradictory to the promises made.  This isn’t the first time either one has changed their positioning simply to win (McCain more so than Obama considering McCain has taken on some hard-line conservative views when he has always been very moderate) but I can’t take too much more of it.

So I hope everyone is able to see that this election cannot be about personality, popularity, attractiveness or punchlines.  Issues and the policies to address those issues has to be the main focus of American voters this November.  We simply cannot afford another administration of lies and poorly constructed policies.

Nor can we afford to vote someone else in solely because they “look like someone you could hang out with”.  I don’t want to hang out with my President.  I want them to fix the problems that cannot.

If we make the same mistake 3 times in a row, we’ll just have another person walking out of the White House a few years telling the American people “Sorry I couldn’t do a better job!”:

This is why I give Lou Dobbs so much credit for the Independent Convention.  Here I give you Bob Barr, the Libertarian party candidate; who hails from Georgia.

I think that both of the major parties are taking the Southern vote for granted.  Economic hardships have hit the entire country, not just the North and the West.  Is the thought that just because someone has conservative beliefs (Palin) or they have a blue collar background (Biden) that the entire South will line up behind them?

As I said months ago, Bob Barr should be included in these debates.  At least I know that he knows Southern policy and will bring it to the forefront of all discussions.  The entire country needs to have its issues raised, not just the ones deemed most important for getting elected.

Google Images: http://icemandel.tripod.com

I’ve heard that each generation has that single day in which they will never forget where they were, what they were doing and how it changed their lives.  Unfortunately, I have three days.  You see, when politicians slam each other for having a “September 10th” mindset, though it disgusts me for using the memory of 9/11 for political gain, it does ring home with me.

On September 10th, I came home had an argument with a close friend, played a little football to clear my mind, watched Ed McCaffery break his leg on Monday Night Football (Broncos v. Giants) and looked at my roommates new birthday tattoo.  My dream of being the next Coach Bobby Knight were still in tack.  Life was great then.  I went to sleep as if it Tuesday would just be another day.

On September 11th, I woke up (late) only to hear of startling news out of New York.  My entire family was still there; sister worked in that area and so did my aunt for that matter.  Sadly, so did two childhood friends of mine.  Everyone I knew made it home except for one person.

On September 12th, Hope sprang as news that a man was identified (alive) with my friend’s name but later as twisted irony would have it that there were two men with the same name; the one that made it wasn’t my friend.

Distraught, I realized that something was terribly wrong with the world because just yesterday things seemed perfect.  Anger consumed me, I wanted to go rip some heads off and sh*t down some necks.  Rationality asked me “if once those responsible were caught, would the cycle of an eye for an eye ever stop? Or would one side have to be eradicated?”  Ah, I figured it out! Foreign policy would be needed in conjunction with brute force to insure that future generations wouldn’t have to go through this again.

So, I vowed until I came to affect policy, I would entrust my political representatives to make the decisions necessary to begin the process of healing and vindictive retribution. But, instead we went down the wrong path.  We got caught up in trying to police a riot and forgot that we just came for a bar fight.  Distracted from the mission at hand, we have now plunged into a vat of political feces; no bottom to be seen, too far down to climb back out.

It’s more than the fact that we have yet to (publicly) find those responsible.  More than the fact that my countrymen still have no memorial site built.

It’s that there’s no end to the mess we’re in because for too long we’ve been taken for a ride; trusting that we’re been taken in the right direction.  Now, 7 years later, and I have yet to taste the metaphorical air of September 12th.  Some like GOP Republican Darrell Issa have moved past 9/11; as have most.  But I can’t because we’re no closer to giving me what I crave the most; closure.  My friend’s death is still not rectified.  The scars from the attack on my family, my city, my country, my lifestyle, my values and my beliefs still have not healed.

Politicians for too long have used 9/11 for their benefit and received our trust; only to deliver no answers or solutions.

So as this year’s election draws closer, when schmucks like Rudy Guilianni try to use the memory of 9/11 for political gain we should flip them the bird.  Stop using the memory of 9/11 to justify bad policies and failed initiatives.  Stop using it to attempt to show foreign policy competency.  Stop using it to expand government power.  Stop using it to abuse the privacy and civil rights of American citizens.  Stop using it to mask discrimination, hate, biases and xenophobia.  Start using it to promote much needed changes to American policy and practices.

I don’t want to constantly remember the pain of 9/11 and what it’s done to me.  I want to remember how right things seemed on September 10th and think of how right September 12th could be if they stop pushing our heads deeper into the vat as we try to escape the nightmare.

P.S.

I WANT SOLID, DESCRIPTIVE POLICY CHANGES!! I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR “BRIDGE TO NOWHERE”, YOUR P.O.W STORIES, YOUR BI-RACIAL BACKGROUND OR YOUR FAMILY TRAGEDY ANYMORE.  GREAT STORIES BUT I’VE HEARD ENOUGH ALL READY.  TELL ME EXACTLY HOW YOU’RE GOING TO FIX THIS COUNTRY.  I PRAISE THE LIBERTARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES FOR DOING SO. CATCH UP REPUBLICANS!

However, people like Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland don’t help the GOP cause, when they call a black family “uppity”.

Google Images: You must make Georgia so proud!

(For those who don’t know why it could be offensive, uppity was used to be racially deragotory toward Black Americans who “forgot their place in society”. The word uppity commonly proceeds the word n****r.)

Westmoreland, who represents Georgia’s third district, described the Obamas as “uppity” when asked by reporters in Washington to compare Repubican vice presidential canidate Sarah Palin with the wife of the Democratic presidential candidate.

“Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they’re a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity,” Westmoreland said, according to the Capitol Hill Newspaper the Hill.

Maybe its use wasn’t racially motivated. In fact, he later says he didn’t know it had racial overtones.

But, being 1) a politician in high office and 2) born and raised in the segregated south, don’t assume that the American public is stupid enough to believe you didn’t know it even had racial overtones.

Luckily for Republicans, Mr. Congressman you’re not directly involved with this year’s Presidential race. However, you might try to not speak so much until it’s over.

p.s.

Here is the Congressman on the Colbert Report advocating the placement of the 10 Commandments in all public buildings; sadly he doesn’t know what all 10 commandments are.

It was well noted that she had been accused of abusing her power in trying to forcefully have her sister’s ex-husband fired; which has been dubbed “Trooper Gate”.  Scandalous? Sure.  Enough evidence to damage the campaign? No.  However, there is another skeleton that fell out of the closet which can be damaging. But, this secret sounds more like a movie or Hollywood gossip than a political cover-up.

True or not, rumors of what’s being called “Baby Gate” have been circulating about Gov Palin covering up her 16-year-old daughters pregnancy by claiming the child is her own.  Gov Palin surprisingly announced that she was 7 months pregnant which was news to everyone considering she never showed physical signs of pregnancy.  (Amazingly enough, photos have surfaced of her during a previous pregnancy where I’m guessing she must’ve just been hiding a basketball under her shirt)

Considering how little is known about her nationally, I’m sure there will be more digging into her past.  Also considering how little investigation John McCain’s team did, I’m sure something else will surface.

I feel bad for McCain though because I know why he chose her; though illogical he had to take a gamble.  I thought because of her lack of national experience and not being able to help secure a regional voting bloc outside of Alaska would doom the McCain campaign (I still think Pawlenty was the best choice considering the options).  But, if there are more damaging allegations that come to light about Sarah Palin, the McCain campaign might be doomed before the debates or elections even get here.  The fact of the matter is this, in scandals like this, politicians don’t even need to run attack ads and no need to bring up the argument.  Why? Because once scandals hits the internet, nothing can stop it.

Political Rule Number 1: Never get caught in a cover-up.

“However, the options just aren’t there for McCain. So unless he can reel in someone with huge name recognition and/or is young and/or has wide conservative support and/or a woman, he’s going to have to work very hard to sell his choice to his supporters.” – ‘Who does John McCain pick for VP now?’

So naturally you thought that simply picking a woman would dramatically help your cause. Understand, a woman on your ticket brings many new scenarios into play. 1) You can continue to show that you’re a “Maverick”, always willing to think outside the box. 2) You will draw some second thoughts from the female voting bloc and 3) You will get more CNN air time as a result.

Now, what you failed to also do is bring in someone to have your back. You needed someone who was a lock to be virtually “un-attackable”. Though Palin has some strengths, opens your campaign up to criticisms it could have otherwise avoided. She was accused of abused her power while governor, is on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission (seemingly counterproductive to the McCain argument that intends to move away from the Oil lobby influences), and is also only in her first term as governor.

That aside, I think the two most overlooked flaws in this pick are that first, she doesn’t really help him pick up any new states or a region. Sure, she’ll probably lock up the Alaska vote but then what? For what that’s worth he could have gone with Gov Crist in Florida; at least he would have gotten more Electoral College votes. Secondly, she’s not that well known. The idea that her simply being the correct gender will make people blindly gravitate toward her is a bit naive. McCain needed a name that the conservative base could quickly rally toward.

So let’s tally this up: 1) Little state experience, no national experience 2) Controversial past actions 3) Might have some conflicts of interests 4) Small help picking up states 5) Not well known 6) Not much conservative base following 7) Speaks okay and is smart Is a woman 9) Isn’t tied to Pres Bush.

6 bad + 3 good = Not a great pick

I believe McCain and the GOP have missed a huge opportunity to change the face of Republican politics in not picking Gov Pawlenty. Sure, Palin will get a good buzz going, but I don’t believe she’s half the speaker that Pawlenty is. If she gets trounced in debates or doesn’t deliver a good speech, that memory lasts.

This pick leaves McCain only slightly better of than he was before. And, in this election, attack ads and ploys to get the disgruntled Hillary ( aka PUMA) voters won’t cut it. For his sake, I hope that she will “WOW” the conservative base during the GOP convention. Anything short of that and this pick will be worthless.

McCain has to choose very wisely when it comes to his VP.  The perceived obstacles of being a moderate Republican, being a Bush administration supporter, lacking charisma, lacking business prowess and well, being old, are all things McCain has to work to remedy by balancing the ticket out with someone who quiets screams about everything he is not.

Indeed there is nothing new about this process.  However, the options just aren’t there for McCain.  So unless he can reel in someone with huge name recognition and/or is young and/or has wide conservative support and/or a woman, he’s going to have to work very hard to sell his choice to his supporters.

His best choice for VP would undoubtedly be Sect of State Condy Rice.  Internationally well liked, domestically well liked.  She’d garner the support of the GOP, there would be no record to bash, no issues to jump on. She’s a black woman and I don’t need to spell out how that could dramatically help McCain.  She almost perfect because two things stand in McCain’s way.  First, and most importantly, she doesn’t want the gig.  Can’t get past that.  But secondly, is that she was in Pres. Bush’s cabinet and would be direct link to the administration McCain is trying to separate himself from.

His second choice should be former Sect of State Colin Powell.  Great for all the reasons above and immediately disqualified for all the same reasons above.

Third on the list would have to be Mike Huckabee.  Youthful, charismatic, conservative support and because of the primaries, is a very well known person.  I’ve always maintained that based on the options, Huckabee should be the pick.  But, I’m convinced that McCain would much rather go with someone with more economic experience.  Not sure what else could disqualify him, unless behind closed doors he and McCain hate each other or Huckabee has some skeletons that might come out of the closet before election night.  Not sure if Huckabee really wants the job either.  He seems very content in running for a Congressional seat and going on the Colbert Report.

Briefly, Mitt Romney is on the short list but would spell doom and destruction for McCain’s campaign.  Romney knows business, has name recognition and is reasonably aged but that’s where the pros stop.  They don’t care for each other.  Conservatives don’t really care for him (he was pro-choice and switched to pro-life before the primaries…it didn’t help his cause).  He doesn’t really help McCain pick up any states.  Mr. Romney you are dismissed.

Briefly, Rudy Guiliani is um, well, Rudy Guiliani.  Fairly liberal Republican.  Not well liked by the conservative base.  Won’t help in any state, including his home state New York.  Guiliani, hold Romney’s hand so you don’t get lost on your way to political purgatory.

In a two for one, former Gov Tom Ridge and Sen Joe Lieberman.  If McCain figures he’s totally screwed in trying to lock up the full conservative base (which he might be if he doesn’t play his cards right), he definitely  might have to go 100% into getting the Independent votes.  These two gents would help tremendously in this case.  That aside, Ridge could help carry Pennsylvania and Lieberman, Connecticut; both pluses.  However, he would further alienate the conservatives which he still would desperately need in order to win (especially if Bob Barr gets more attention). With Lieberman an Independent (now) and Ridge a moderate Republican both being socially liberal, can McCain really afford to make a gamble like this? My bet his a solid no.  Sorry guys, you can still be his ‘yes’ men though.

Now down to one legitimate choice because Charlie Crist (too many secrets/limited help), Bobby Jindal (not well known enough yet/limited help) and others really had little chance. The choice is Gov Tim Pawlently. Young, conservative support, little issues to attack, gets along with McCain, decently traveled name and best of all, no ties to the Bush administration.  He’s the best pick for the GOP as well. Young rising star to showcase as the new face of the GOP and if promoted correctly, he could be what Barack Obama is the the Dems, the personification of the changing of the guard.  His downside is that he doesn’t have the economic background to show off, however as Gov of Minnesota he’s had to deal with budgets and that could help.  Pawlenty is well spoken enough to handle the last step of introducing himself to the nation and the battle for the White House will take another step forward.

1. Going into Iraq was probably one of the worst foreign policy decisions the U.S. could have made.

2. Staying in Iraq too long will not help foreign policy objectives in the future.

3. Leaving too early will only help to destabilize an all ready unstable area.

4. America’s domestic safety is not directly linked to leaving Iraq.

5. Remedying this situation equates to having to turn a landfill into a mountain of gold.

6. No matter what any party (Republican, Democrat or Other) says, none of them knows how to handle this dilemma.

7. A U.S.-Iranian War is not inevitable. However, another Iraq-Iran war is very likely.

Ok, now that we have that out of the way let me go into what’s been on my mind for a little bit. Between both of the major parties you hear either a) We need to stay the course in Iraq because it is vital to the safety of the U.S. or b) We need to leave Iraq now because it is vital to the safety of the U.S.

Is either one of these ideas correct outright? No. Is one better than the other? No.

McCain thinks the U.S. should keep a strong presence in Iraq for the stability of the county. And personally, he is right. Staying in Iraq would be great for their stability but not because of the reasons he gives. Radicalists will not control the government as they were able to do in Afganistan. Long term, Al-Qaeda is not the greatest concern for Americans interests in Iraq; Iran is. If the reports are true (which I always take with some skepticism) about the Iran trained men, then Iran has been training individuals not to provoke the American army but to keep the Iraqi government from gaining legitimacy. No matter how tough these leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk, no one wants to provoke a war with the maniacs running the U.S. military. Forcing American demilitarization of the region and a destabilized Iraqi government is much more important to Iran’s interests. Now, I’m not saying they want to provoke a war with the Iraqi’s either. But, I’m sure they’d like to have a greater hand in how things are run within their neighbor country.

Obama wants to get out right now. Well, not immediately. But, he’d like to phase out the military over 18-24 months. And personally, I agree with him too. The American military presence is no long necessary for the reasons the Bush administration continues to give. However, Obama’s reason for leaving isn’t the best of reasons either. Leaving just because we should have never been there is just plain ridiculous. Sure, thousands of people lost their lives. Sure, there could be much more that the U.S. could do there. But honestly, the necessity of U.S. occupation there in its current capacity has expired. However, it’s their capacity that needs to change, not their presence.

Depending on your standpoint, you either fear the consequences of leaving or you hate the idea of staying. However, it is in the combination of the two that will alleviate the problem of Iraq. Yes, we need to withdraw from Iraq–as their country-wide police officers. Iraq needs to step up and begin to insure its own day-to-day safety. If we back out of their daily routines, their desire to do things right will kick in. But, staying only makes resentment increase as all their problems will be attributed to the U.S. presence.

If the U.S. continues to stay, and they should for at least another few years, it should only be in a border patrol capacity. Simply keeping away negative outside influences should be the U.S.’s only duty going foward.

How likely is something like this? Not very. Each candidate seems determined in going for an extreme decision. Maybe they’re looking to create some excitement for the next few presidents to deal with.

Yes, aside the fact that she would be pissed off. C’mon, let’s be serious.

Obama notably has to choose someone as his Veep that takes focus off either: the fact that he is still young or the fact that he has little foreign diplomacy experience; or both.

Jack Cafferty recently asked if it were a good idea for Obama to choose Sen. Chuck Hagel (a Republican). I doubt that will happen, though it is a strong gesture. Convincing people that even a moderate Republican can coexist with a Democrat would be a magical feat. However, a choice similar to Hagel would represent assurance for one of the four Hillary scenarios.

Again, Obama needs one of those two criteria satisfied, if not both. So for arguments sake, we’ll say that he finds both age and foreign diplomacy experience in one person. It could set up for Hillary Clinton’s dream scenario. Let’s say Obama wins this year’s elections. An older Veep guarantees that he/she probably will not run for re-election. Leaving the door wide open for a Clinton running down the line; provided she still wants the position (but she will). This would be great for her future and she can run a slow and steady campaign to the White House. Not her best option, but I’d say it’s a solid, though distant second.

However, if he chooses a younger, albeit experienced individual, it would make her life that more difficult because she’d essentially have to go down the tough road of showing how much better she would be for the job. Conversely, she couldn’t argue her White House experience because she’d be running against the former Veep in all likelihood. Boo, young Obama Veep choices. Hooray old guys! (Ok, maybe the Red Stripe humor doesn’t carry over in text.)

Hillary supporters shouldn’t read this paragraph. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. The worst choice for Hillary’s future but would go a long way towards Obama reclaiming some of her disgruntled supporters, would be for him to choose an experienced woman. It instantly makes Hillary almost irrelevant in the women’s rights circle and chances are Hillary would have to fight like hell to regain them if they ran against each other. Don’t cry though, it would be great for American politics. Two women totally deserving of Executive office would be unprecedented.

Now, for those of you keeping track, here’s her fourth and best option. Obama loses this fall. If that were to happen, she can step in four years from now and say, “I told you so”. She’d have the landslide primary win that she expected to have this year and would give McCain a run depending on how well he does while in office.

To Hillary’s credit though, I’m sure she’s not sitting around waiting to see what happens. She’ll secure her Senate position by attempting to gain more power, take note of her most loyal supporters and sharpen her sword of retribution in vindictive preparation.

BUT TO WIN BY 39 IN GAME 6 IS NUTS!!!

Ok, maybe I haven’t fully gotten over how the Celtics dismantled the Lakers. Those of you who know me are privy to the fact that I despise L.A.; especially the Lakers. So, I was not saddened by the sight of them getting pummeled. Actually, I felt good about it. So good that I wished there were a Game 7 to watch it happen again. But, I was perplexed by one thing though. Are the Celts really THAT good?

Unlike some idiots you see on T.v. (cough, cough Skip “I watched every minute of every game that’s ever played, therefore I know everything about sports” Bayless), I actually watched every minute of the game. And contrary to what the score might say, the Lakers did not give up; they were simply over-matched. Yes, they Celts kicked them around in Games 1 and 2. Yes, they put on a clinic in Game 4 coming back from 24 points down. But, wow. Not only couldn’t the Lakers score, but the Celtics couldn’t be stopped.

The Celts are up there in age but if they can pull it together for another year, one would have to imagine they’d be the favorites again. Now consider this, if the Lakers are the best mix of youth and experience the Western Conference has to offer (and they are), does the West stand a chance in the face of the Celtics?

The Hornets, Pistons, and Cavaliers are strong wild cards. The Suns and Spurs are fading in depth and talent. What stops a Celtics team playing the way they did?

Before any hateful words or calls for my termination, let me say that I hope the Celtics don’t win. First, though I still admire their players but I despise Boston fans. (They’re unbearably obnoxious. ) And secondly, I am not a fan of dynasties. I’d much rather a group of first timers win it all than to watch the same faces hold up the trophy.

Regardless, the Celts deserved it this year and they should have a huge celebration. Just please don’t go out and hit a stripper in the head with a champagne bottle, or wrap your sports car around a tree.