Question asked: "Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?" - Barack Obama, 2004 keynote address at the Democratic Convention

Question answered: "I guess if you think that being rich means that you've got to make $5 million and if you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy was fundamentally strong, but if you're like me and you've got one house, or if you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, you might have a different perspective." - Barack Obama, August 2008

Sounds like the Big O, the NEW kind of politician (lol), has chosen the politics of cynicism to me, especially when you consider that McCain was KIDDING about rich being defined as an income of $5 million per year. McCain uttered those words at Rick Warren's Saddleback forum, and the very next words out of his mouth were "but no, seriously". Obama knows McCain was joking, but he doesn't care. The politics of cynicism suits Obama just fine when polls show the presidential race is a statistical dead heat. The thing about McCain not knowing how many homes he owns is another piece of twaddle. The reason McCain doesn't know is because Cindy McCain owns several investment properties, and the McCain's finances are kept separate, which is part of a pre-nuptial agreement. McCain has a condo in D.C, and apartment in Phoenix, and a really laid out mansion in Sedona. McCain has gone from the lowest of lows to the highest of highs. McCain's life is one hell of a story. It isn't something to be condemned by anyone.

At this point I might ask Barack "I am my brother's keeper" Obama why he lets his African half-brother live in a hut on $1 per month while Barry The Socialist thrives here in the mean old USA ? BO lectures us on why we should let the government take more of our money, while he is literally not his brother's keeper. What would Jesus do, Barry ?

But Obama's attacks are just part of the Democrats larger playbook, which is based upon dividing people and pitting them against each other. The Democrats tell you who you're supposed to hate, and then they stoke the fires. When they talk about McCain being out of touch because he thinks $5 million per year is rich (even though McCain doesn't think that), they are telling you the rich are the enemy. When you see the Democratic attack ad that says McCain wants to lower Exxon's taxes, the Dems are telling you to hate corporate America, who the Dems see as the enemy. Dems hate anyone who has lots of money who isn't them (yet they had no problem whatsoever running mega-rich guys like Al Gore and John Kerry for president. See how that works ?). The truth is, McCain wants to lower American corporate tax rates for all business, because American tax rates are the second highest in the world at 35%, which puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and contributes to our slow economy. McCain's proposal will HELP AMERICA. It will create jobs, but all the Dems want you to see is HATE EXXON. HATE CORPORATIONS. It's class warfare, and it's unamerican. This is supposed to be the land of the free. We aren't supposed to demonize success and use the government as an instrument to penalize it into submission. The USSR already tried that other way. It doesn't work, because it's an inferior model to our way. It's not even a close call, except for the perpetually confused.

I heard Nancy Pelosi say yesterday that the Republican protest over not getting a vote on offshore oil drilling was "the dance of the handmaidens of big oil." San Fran Nan is so blinded by the light of her own hate that she can't even admit the obvious, that drilling for domestic oil is not only a good idea, it's also a necessary idea for national security purposes. During the same interview on Meet The Press, Pelosi claimed offshore oil drilling (increasing the oil supply) wouldn't lower the price of oil, and then in the next breath said we should release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (increasing the oil supply) to lower the price of oil. Listening to these idiots is like some weird comedy routine. There should be an accompanying laugh track. Also on the same program, Pelosi falsely claimed the Catholic Church has never made a determination on when life begins. Like hell they haven't. That's why the church is against abortion. Nan was parroting Obama's "it's above my pay grade" evasion on abortion, only dumber. Aren't the Dems the ones who claim to be pro-science ? Cue that laugh track again, please.

I really don't know how I'm going to survive the next four days of the Democratic Convention. You are going to hear all the standard targets of Dem hate being demonized (the rich, business, capitalism, free markets, the military, Republicans, and most of all…B-U-S-H). You are going to hear more lies and distortions than you even heard in your whole life. It's going to be BS on steroids. I almost went crazy yesterday listening to the Dems tell lie after lie on television. By thursday, the Dems will do their darnedest to convince you that John McCain and George W. Bush are the exact same person, because the Dems aren't really running against McCain, they are running against Bush. I'm not a Bush fan either, especially regarding his non-conservative fiscal policies, but if you listen to liberals, Bush is worse than Hitler. It's a good thing for liberals that isn't really true, or they'd all be on trains headed for the concentration camps. You aren't supposed to pay any attention to the actual differences between McCain and Bush, and there are many, which Dems would have gladly pointed out to you until the moment McCain became the Republican nominee. At that moment, he became a Bush clone. They don't want you to know that unlike Bush, McCain wants to decrease federal spending. Unlike Bush, McCain wants to balance the budget. Unlike Bush, McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate. Unlike Bush, McCain wants to redo unemployment insurance. Unlike Bush, McCain wants to offer a huge refundable tax deduction for health care expenses. The Dems don't want you to hear ANY of that. They want you to repeat the following words like a mindless robot - MCCAIN IS A THIRD TERM OF FAILED BUSH POLICIES. And what they Dems REALLY don't want you to think about is what the actual effect of Obama's tax and spend big government policies will be. On that score, you, as a mindless robot, are only supposed to remember one word - CHANGE. That's all you need to know, Obamatons. See, it's simple. Say it along with me, MCCAIN IS A THIRD BUSH TERM. CHANGE. MCCAIN IS A THIRD BUSH TERM. CHANGE. MCCAIN IS A THIRD BUSH TERM. CHANGE. MCCAIN IS A THIRD BUSH T…..

Bonus Dem hate tip: Don't forget, Republicans are racists and fascists too. Unite For Change.

And don't miss the Dem convention afterparty on friday at William Ayers' house. It's BYOB (bring your own bomb). It'll be a blast. Literally. Down with the bourgeousie.

The Republican party may not admit it, but they are breathing a huge sigh of relief this morning that Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's Vice Presidential pick. An Obama-Clinton "dream team" ticket was viewed by the GOP as nearly unbeatable. According to Politico, Hillary wasn't even vetted by the Obama campaign, which may indicate she was never under consideration for the Veep post. I find that odd considering Hillary's status. She would have practically guaranteed the female vote in november.

Among the candidates reported by the media as being the finalists for Vice President (Biden, Bayh, Kaine, Clinton), I think Obama made the best pick other than Clinton. Senator Joe Biden from Delaware has the experience that Obama does not have. He has 30 years of experience in the Senate, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and has chaired the Judiciary Committee in the past. Biden knows his way around D.C. politics. He could step into the presidency if necessary. There are things about Biden I don't like. He is generally liberal, and he presided over the judicial confirmation hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, two of the biggest examples of the politics of personal destruction you will ever witness.

On another level, Biden is a very bizarre choice for Barack "Change" Obama to make. It is well-known that Biden is a friend of John McCain's, and has said in the past that the country would be "well-served" by a McCain (or Biden) presidency. During the primaries, Biden characterized Obama as an inexperienced first term Senator. Biden said he didn't believe America would elect someone as wet behind the ears as Obama to the highest post in the land. I'm sure the GOP is ready to dust off all those old anti-Obama pro-McCain quotes from Biden.

Even worse, Biden voted in favor of the Iraq war, and was also in favor of the Surge. Biden calls himself a centrist on foreign policy, meaning his views are closer to McCain's than they are to Obama's. How does Obama explain nominating someone as his Veep who is against Obama's signature issue position, the issue that brought Obama to the forefront - opposition to the war ? Picking Biden seems to counter the essential Obama (if there is such a thing).

It's almost like Barack Obama is selecting McCain as his Veep when it comes to foreign policy. I'm definitely surprised by this pick. Obama probably picked Biden to offset Obama's lack of experience, but it may only serve to highlight that very thing.

I don't know if it's really fair to call Barack Obama a flip-flopper. A flip-flopper changes his mind about an issue, like John McCain did about offshore drilling. Obama does something a little different. He takes both sides of an issue at the same time and then acts like anyone who points it out is waging some personal attack against him. Obama then "fine tunes" his message according to the interests of whatever group to whom he is talking. If he's talking to his left-wing anti-war base, Iran is a tiny country and almost no threat to the USA. If he's talking to the Israelis, Iran is a grave threat. Obama has used this method of misdirection on almost every major issue, resulting in the bizarre circumstance where, the more you listen to Obama speak, the less you know about where he stands. He is both for and against capital punishment. He is both for and against the Second Amendment. He is either for or against increasing the Social Security payroll tax. He is either for or against increasing the capital gains tax. His tv ads say Obama is a taxcutter, but he is proposing more tax increases than any president in memory. He condemns the Bush deficits, but then says deficit reduction is not a priority for his administration, because there are too many "investments in America" (new government spending) he wants to make. He vilifies the Bush economy, but then plots the worst course imaginable in a shaky economy, big tax and spending increases. On and on it goes. Where it stops nobody knows. At the end of the day, his principles are almost unfathomable. It's no small wonder then, that his poll numbers are dropping (and no, Barack, it's NOT racism, you whiny baby).

So why should we expect anything different from Obama on the sticky issue of abortion ? We shouldn't, and what we have received from Obama on this issue has been, well, Obama-esque. Everything and nothing. Here's a relevant excerpt from Rick Warren's Saddleback forum:

WARREN: Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

Note that Warren didn't ask Obama when life begins, he asked him for an opinion on when a baby gets human rights, and Obama weakly refused to offer one. I'd think even the most strident pro-choicer would say the baby gets human rights after it's born. A strident pro-lifer would say the baby gets human rights at conception, as McCain did to the same question. Obama acted like Warren's question required him to play God. It didn't. It required him to make a decision. Decision-making is pretty important for a president. Having a president who shrugs and says "beats me" isn't really the ideal. A president should know his own mind and communicate it to America, or else he shouldn't be running for president. Somehow, saying "change" over and over isn't enough. Here's how Obama communicated his position on abortion at the Saddleback forum:

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

Ooh. Impressive. Obama is SO wise. He's "absolutely convinced" that abortion is "a moral and ethical issue". Well, no sh*t, Sherlock. I bet Obama is also convinced that the Russia-Georgia conflict is a "foreign policy" issue. He's just brilliant, isn't he ? Let's continue with Obama's abortion discourse:

OBAMA: But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways…so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground…how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

Yippee !!! Obama declares a position !!! He's pro-choice !!! Strike up the band. But then he immediately qualifies it by saying that although he's pro-choice, he's not pro-abortion. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. It's not like there's any connection between being pro-choice and actual abortions happening. No, no, the one has NOTHING to do with the other, just like Hitler had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Obama even offers proof (of something. I'm not sure what) by declaring that abortions have NOT gone down under our current pro-life president, George W. Bush. Aha !!! There are a couple problems with BO's observations, though. First, abortions HAVE gone down during the Bush administration, and second, even though Dubya may be pro-life, the LAW is still pro-choice, so Dubya's personal preference doesn't mean squat. Big duh, Barack.

Now for the piece de resistance of Obama Saddleback claptrap:

WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health.

Right. I have a question. If Obama favors limits on late term abortions, why does his ENTIRE VOTING RECORD say precisely the opposite ? Obama has always voted pro-abortion. ALWAYS. He has voted against banning late term partial birth abortions. He even voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and then slandered the National Right To Life Committee when they pointed it out. He called them liars when they were telling the truth. He called them liars when it is Obama himself who is lying. Obama has been going around accusing author Jerome Corsi of "just making stuff up" in Corsi's anti-Obama book, Obamanation. I suggest Obama stop "just making stuff up" regarding his record on abortion.

At Saddleback, and also to the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Barack Obama was afraid to admit his actual radical stance on abortion, because he knew it wouldn't be well received, so he LIED. He evaded. He JUST MADE STUFF UP.

The Cowardice Of Hope. Change We Can't Believe In. No We Won't.

Last night on CBS, the respected news program 60 Minutes aired an interview with "outed" CIA analyst Valerie Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. Plame and Wilson allege the Bush administration revealed her status as a covert CIA operative as punishment for Joe Wilson's New York Times op-ed, which claimed the Bush administration lied about Saddam Hussein attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa.

Given the seriousness, sensitivity, and political ramifications of this issue, CBS assigned it's premier political expert and in-depth hard-hitting heavyweight investigative journalist to the story - Katie Couric (???). They would have used Andy Rooney, but he was busy with an important segment about umbrellas for this week's show (this is not a joke).

The first relevant issue 60 Minutes left out of the Plame-Wilson saga (and they left out a whole bunch) was whether or not Joe Wilson was correct in his allegation that Bush lied about Saddam's attempt to buy uranium in Africa. The 16 words spoken by Bush in his State Of The Union speech were these:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

It was true that the CIA was unsure about whether Saddam had attempted to buy uranium from Africa, specifically Niger, and CIA director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee, not a Bushie) accepted blame for not reviewing and removing the 16 words from the SOTU. However, the 16 words didn't say anything about CIA intelligence. The 16 words claimed it was BRITISH intelligence that made the find, so what do the British have to say about it ? Here are some of the conclusions, from FactCheck.org:

- A British intelligence review (the Butler Report) released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
- A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
- Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
- Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

So, those forged documents that Wilson claimed made a liar out of Bush had nothing to do with the British intel, which the British and our own Congress called well-founded, and the information Wilson supplied to the CIA about his trip to Niger actually SUPPORTED rather than disproved the notion that Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger. In spite of all this readily available information, 60 Minutes left the impression that the forged documents disproved Bush's 16 words, when in reality they had nothing to do with them. 60 Minutes knowingly misled the public to make Bush look like a liar about this, just like Joe Wilson did back in his dishonest 2003 NY Times op-ed. Either that, or 60 Minutes has collective amnesia. It was Joe Wilson's own lies about what he found on his Niger trip that initially fueled this controversy, and eventually led to his wife's "outing".

This leads me to the second glaring omission from the 60 Minutes Plame story. 60 Minutes acted like there were four leakers of Plame's identity: Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney. But only one of those four was the ORIGINAL LEAKER. In Plame's own words, which she used to excuse her high profile public behavior in the aftermath of Bob Novak's column exposing her identity, once her identity was leaked, "the damage had already been done." Indeed, and the original leaker in the Plame case was RICHARD ARMITAGE, a State department official who opposed the Iraq war. Armitage was the primary source for Bob Novak's article, and also leaked Plame's name to Bob Woodward in June 2003. Woodward described Armitage as "a government official with no axe to grind", and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who investigated the Plame "outing" for 2 years, concluded Armitage committed no crime in revealing Plame's identity, because he did not know she was a covert CIA operative. Once Plame was outed she was outed, and Armitage was the outer. The rest of it was back and forth conversation between reporters and White House officials. Bob Novak has testified that he mentioned Plame to Karl Rove first, not the other way around. Somehow, 60 Minutes forgot to mention all that too, and instead created the impression that the Bushies were "out to get" Plame, when there is ample evidence to the contrary. Nobody in the Bush administration was ever charged with criminally leaking Plame's identity. Scooter Libby was charged and convicted for making false statements to the FBI during the investigation. There was a difference between Libby's recollection and reporters recollection of who spoke Plame's name to whom first. Valerie Plame claimed Bush was not a man of his word because Bush didn't fire anyone for the leak (Bush promised to fire anyone who leaked classified information), but Libby did resign when he was charged, and nobody else was charged, so who was Bush supposed to fire ? Was he supposed to fire people who Patrick Fitzgerald found no reason to prosecute ?

Another thing that always amazed me about the Plame story is this - Bob Novak (the reporter who actually disclosed Plame's identity in his newspaper column, who 60 Minutes referred to as "a conservative columnist" in their report) called CIA headquarters at Langley, Va to confirm Valerie Plame's employment after Armitage told him she worked there, and the CIA CONFIRMED HER EMPLOYMENT !!! Now, I'm no expert on secret agents, spying, moles, or covert operations, but is it standard practice to OPENLY CONFIRM THE EMPLOYMENT OF COVERT OPERATIVES OVER THE TELEPHONE, TO A REPORTER NO LESS ??? I mean, c'mon folks. The CIA wasn't THAT concerned about her cover.

Next, CBS' Katie Couric had Valerie Plame show all the redacted (blacked out) pages from her book, Fair Game (which, btw, is published by Simon and Schuster, who is owned by…drumroll, please…CBS). The redaction was designed to show the frustration Mrs. Plame has faced in getting her side of the story out to the public, though 60 Minutes sure didn't tell any other side of the story than Plame's. The heavy redaction of Mrs. Plame's book was done by her former employer, the CIA. Now, I ask you, WHY DOES THE CIA BLACK OUT PORTIONS OF MANUSCRIPTS ???? It's to protect national security, to protect CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. So, I must ask this. Why would Valerie Plame attempt to reveal so much classified information in her book (10% of her book was redacted), when Plame is SO VERY CONCERNED WITH KEEPING COVERT OPS A SECRET, when Plame knows how very dangerous it is to reveal that information ???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Anyone ?

Finally, you'd think 60 Minutes might have mentioned the fact that Plame's lawsuit against Bush administration officials was dismissed five days before 60 Minutes aired their Plame story, but no, I guess that wasn't relevant either.

CBS might as well give Dan Rather his job back. Nothing much has changed over there.

And did I mention that Joseph Wilson became a John Kerry campaign advisor in May 2003, two months BEFORE he started this whole mess by falsely calling Bush a liar in the op-ed pages of the NY Times ?????? CBS didn't think that was newsworthy either, even though Valerie Plame falsely claimed during her 60 Minutes interview that she and hubby became partisans only in reaction to and FOLLOWING her outing by the mean old Bush administration, as follows:

"What about those who think you and Joe have become too partisan?" Couric asks.

"Again, that's how it's how the 'right' has chosen to frame us," Plame Wilson says.

"You have become very partisan though. Would you agree with that?" Couric asks.

"After what we've been through and how I've seen this administration react, not
just on this issue, but on others, yes," Plame Wilson says.

The truth is, the Wilson's were partisan before any of this even started, and partisanship was a large part of the reason it DID start. In spite of what Plame says now, it was the prewar conclusion of the CIA and CIA director Tenet that Saddam DID have wmd and was pursuing nuclear weapons. That's what it said in the National Intelligence Estimate the CIA forwarded to Congress before the congressional vote on the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In Iraq. In fact, Tenet referred to the certainty of Saddam's wmd as "a slam dunk" to Bush.

My last question is this - If Plame and Wilson were such patriots who were only interested in setting the record straight, why did Joe Wilson wait until FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE WAR STARTED TO WRITE HIS NY TIMES PIECE CALLING BUSH A LIAR ? Why didn't he do his duty as any american would do to prevent his country from making such a huge mistake and air his warning BEFORE THE WAR, when it could have done some good (in a way other than attempting to affect the next presidential election, that is) ???? You don't have to answer this question. I'm pretty sure I already know.

I've been away from many of the trappings of modern civilization for the last few days, including Al Gore's invention, the Internet. I can't wait for Gore's next contribution to society to come to fruition, which I call 'Taxing The Air That We Breathe'. I knew the pols would figure out a way eventually. Since I only have a few minutes of computer time now, I want to get something posted here, so I'm going to abdicate responsibility and print an entire article from John Hawkins. I thought this one was pretty funny, and more than a little bit true. Without further delay, here's John.

FYI - I'll be back tomorrow (hey, stop that booing !).
———————————————————————————————-
25 REASONS YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERAL by John Hawkins

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if…

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

* You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

* You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party.

* You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal.

* You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes."

* You put a higher priority on oil pipelines possibly inconveniencing a few caribou than you do on lowering the price of gas for everyone in the country by drilling ANWR.

* You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda.

* You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount.

* You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action.

* You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas.

* You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help.

* You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights.

* You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.

* You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up in the market is with…drumroll, please…more government intervention.

* You think the first thing we should have done when Russia invaded Georgia was to take the matter to the United Nations, where Russia sits on the UN Security Council.

* You spend your days criticizing the use of private jets, SUVS, and luxurious houses that consume enormous amounts of resources and then ride in an SUV to the airport, get on your private plane, and fly home to your luxurious house.

* You have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba and France than you do about your own country.

* You think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, but victory in the war on poverty is going to happen any day now if we can just get the Democrats back in charge.

* You won't even support English as our national language, but can't seem to understand why people worry about tens of millions of illegal aliens changing our culture.

* You think censorship is absolutely wrong; except when it's applied to conservatives on college campuses or on talk radio via the fairness doctrine.

* You get more upset about an American soldier accidentally killing a civilian than you do about a terrorist deliberately blowing up a school bus full of kids.

* You think Fox News is hopelessly biased to the right, but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS call it right down the middle.

* You think the real hero of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev.

* You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave you a dirty look because you're an American.

* You think kids in public schools should have to watch Earth in the Balance and read Heather Has Two Mommies, but no piece of literature with the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.

The political Left has two basic positions regarding business in America.

1) If a company is making a profit, they characterize the company as evil, and demand that their profits be taken away, so the government can use the money instead (this is known as THEFT in the non-socialist world, but you aren't supposed to think about that). It goes without saying that the bigger a company's profits grow, the MORE evil that company becomes. This means that Exxon-Mobil is the DEVIL INCARNATE.

2) If a company stops making a profit and loses money, the Left will subsidize the company (the Right tends to join in on this part too - Let's privatize profits, socialize losses, and join me on my yacht this weekend, old chum. Life is good).

The above is a twist on Reagan's old joke about government power: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; And when it stops moving, subsidize it.

A good example of #1 is Barack Obama traveling around the country telling everyone he wants to take the profits away from those evil oil companies (who, btw, enable our economy and society to function at a post-19th century level that keeps us off horseback and stagecoaches, but you aren't supposed to think about that. Just keep repeating to yourself - 'Oil Is Evil, Oil Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi (D-Venus) and Harry Reid (D-Mars) do. It's easier than thinking about things.

A good example of #2 is the taxpayer bailout of the mortgage mess, which included bailing out faltering companies like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Those are private companies, aren't they ? Sure they are. Sort of. But talk about connected. They're practically a branch of government.

As far as I can tell, the following industries comprise the liberal Axis Of Evil Corporations: Oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. I provide this list as a public service, so you lay persons out there can know who you should hate. Financial companies used to be on the Axis of Evil list too, but they lost so much money recently that they are no longer evil. Now, they must be subsidized.

The mantra the Left uses to demonize profit goes like this: How dare those greedy so-and-so's at the (fill-in-the-blank) corporation make so much money, when that money could be used for a) a government program, or b) the children ? 'The children' is practically foolproof as an excuse for the government to steal money from the private sector. An autocrat can justify anything if it's 'for the children' You aren't supposed to think about the fact that business profits enable people to have jobs, get paid, and become prosperous. You aren't supposed to realize business profits are the reason you live in a house, have an automobile, a refrigerator, a stove, a television, a phone, electricity, heat, and food. You aren't supposed to realize those business profits earned in a free market made the United States the world's leading superpower. Again, thinking is your enemy. Just keep saying to yourself, 'Profit Is Evil, Profit Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama (D-Cuba) do - and Karl Marx did.

Our Glorious Exalted Leader Obama has even taken it a step further. He has proposed a windfall profits tax on the Devil Who Is Called Exxon and the other oily devils, and wants to hand $1,000 of the Devil's profits directly to each American, so Obama can literally buy your vote, er, help you combat the high costs of energy this winter, costs that Obama and friends won't do anything to help lower for maybe 20 years, and only then if the requisite alternative energy miracle happens in the meantime (except for that nifty 'inflate your tires' tip. That was quite helpful. Thanks, BO. If you were running for gas station attendant, you'd definitely get my vote).

The Left hates profit because America isn't perfect. There are still problems here, unlike all those other utopian socialist paradises, like, um, well, uh……….er, never mind. There must be some somewhere. I just can't think of their names right now. Even though we spend nearly $2 trillion each year on some type of entitlement program, the Left reasons that just isn't enough. Not even close to enough. Ever more and more and more money must be spent by the federal government, and ever more and more and more of your money must be stolen through taxation. Then someday, when NOBODY has any money left and the government is our supreme overlord and master of all things, that perfect socialist utopian nirvana will be achieved. I think it says exactly that on Obama's website, because his answer to absolutely everything is for big government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. I guess that's easier than thinking too.

Color me skeptical. It seems like $2 trillion per year should be plenty enough to keep people out of poverty, to keep them from starving. Yet somehow, it isn't. Could the problem be the government itself ? Nah, that can't be it. Impossible ! It must be the Republicans fault. Dick Cheney must be taking that money and giving it to Halliburton or something. It's a conspiracy of some sort. I know it, even though I have no proof whatsoever. I mean, c'mon, that Cheney guy just LOOKS evil. He's all old and corporate and white and stuff. Who needs proof ? And Cheney shot his buddy on that hunting trip. Don't forget that. What more is there to know ?

An old and very wise saying about democracy goes like this:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.” - John Tyler

That was written in 1770, but it sounds pretty relevant to what's going on today.

Think of that when Barack Obama vows to steal someone else's money to give it to you, or to tax the hell out of the rich as if that won't affect you. It certainly will. We are just finishing with one president who didn't care much about fiscal responsibility, Dubya. Dubya was irresponsible on the spending side. Why on earth would we elect another president of "loose fiscal responsibility", but this time, on BOTH the taxation and spending sides ? $3 TRILLION per year should be plenty enough to run the federal government. Far more than enough, in truth. The tax and spend buck must stop here, or we will suffer serious consequences, the very ones John Tyler warned about back in 1770. Barack Obama wants to declare war on profits. I want to declare war on Barack Obama and all of his socialist/communist/totalitarian ilk, before it's too late.

From Newsmax and the New York Times:

Brownshirts at heart.

A new left-wing organization that wants to help elect Barack Obama president is sending letters to nearly 10,000 major donors who contribute to Republican causes, threatening them with potential legal problems if they finance conservative groups.

The nonprofit organization, Accountable America, is even offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the criminal conviction or fines of at least $10,000 for violations of campaign finance laws or other statutes by a conservative group, according to The New York Times.

Accountable America is led by Tom Matzzie, former Washington director of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, and its research director is Judd Legum, who served that role in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Matzzie called the organization’s effort “going for the jugular.” He told The Times, "We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground.”

The warning letter being sent to potential donors “is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives,” The Times reports.

So, a left-wing Moveon.org spinoff group is trying to intimidate and threaten Republican campaign donors. Ah, can't you just smell the freedom ? They are probably just upset that the Supreme Court hasn't made it illegal to donate to the GOP yet. I'm also wondering how this Matzzie guy has the cojones to complain about Swift Boating when he comes from Moveon.org, who authored the 'General Betray-Us' ad that unjustly smeared U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus. I guess irony, hypocrisy, and self-awareness aren't Matzzie's strong suits. Nor integrity.

I know I can't wait until people like this take over the country. Say goodbye to talk radio, and say goodbye to secret ballots. The tolerant, inclusive, diverse, and compassionate liberals welcome all viewpoints, as long as they are liberal viewpoints. All other viewpoints must be legislated or litigated away. I'm certain that's exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

In 2007, Democratic presidential contender John Edwards accepted a Father Of The Year award. In 2006, John Edwards was banging some broad he picked up in a bar, Rielle Hunter, as Edwards' wife was battling cancer. Classy. He also put the broad he was banging on his campaign payroll as a videographer, paying her over $100,000, even though she didn't have any experience or qualifications. Rielle Hunter had a baby in february, and the father is unknown. There is speculation that Edwards may be the father. Somebody is still paying Rielle Hunter $15,000 per month. That is unknown at this point too. Edwards claims his affair with Miss Hunter ended in 2006, but if so, why did Edwards meet Hunter at the Beverly Hilton for 5 hours a couple weeks ago, exiting her hotel room at 2:45 in the morning ? Edwards ran away when confronted by National Enquirer reporters at that hotel, and barricaded himself into the hotel bathroom (there's a presidential action for you. What would Edwards have done as CINC during a foreign attack, pee his pants and put his hands over his eyes ?). The National Enquirer says Edwards has met with Miss Hunter at least 3 times in the last couple months. That's an odd way to conduct an ended affair.

Is Edwards a hypocrite ? Do birds fly ?

I have to say, I've never considered the National Enquirer to be a reliable news source, and I didn't really believe their story at first. Prior to his confession, where Edwards claimed to be 'ashamed' of his actions and 'bared his soul', John Edwards condemned the Enquirer as a trashy tabloid who lied and made up false stories about him. The problem was, when Edwards said those things, HE was the one lying and making up false stories. The Enquirer was telling the truth. Ouch. It must hurt when one is LESS honest than a sensationalist tabloid magazine that prints stories about outer space aliens working as 7-11 clerks in New Jersey. Then again, Edwards used to be an ambulance chasing lawyer who brought bogus lawsuits against physicians. As physicians were trying to heal the sick, Edwards was trying to pick their pockets, so it's not like the Breck Girl was really all that honorable from the start. And after being a shyster, Edwards went into politics, another profession where lying with a straight face is a valued skill. It wasn't really shocking to me to find out Edwards was full of it. There were hints the size of minivans.

During the confession of his affair, Edwards said he had become "egocentric and narcissistic" while campaigning for president. That sure rings true, even if Edwards claim that his affair ended in 2006 doesn't. I venture to say Edwards was still egocentric and narcissistic in 2007 and 2008 as well, because he made the decision to seek the Democratic presidential nomination AFTER he knew he had this huge skeleton hanging in his closet. That takes some ego. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Democratic party had Edwards won the presidential nomination, and THEN THIS SCANDAL BROKE ??? It would have made Gary Hart's tryst with Donna Rice look like a game of spin the bottle. Edwards would have blown the Dems sky high right before a presidential election, and John Edwards, man of the people (he's the son of a mill worker, you know), was perfectly willing to risk ALL that for his own ambition.

After being caught red-handed and forced to confess his affair, John Edwards still maintained that the National Enquirer was the liar, and Edwards faults himself because "…being 99 percent honest is no longer enough." Sorry, Johnny, I don't see the 99 percent honesty on your part here. Or even 1 percent.

Edwards also claims he shared "every painful detail" of his affair with his wife, Elizabeth. How creepy is that ? 'Well first, Elizabeth, I unbuttoned her blouse, then I stripped off her panties, and then….' Thanks, John, but keep the details to yourself. Your wife has been through enough.

I've been looking for a candidate to support for president this year, and now one has popped up from a most unlikely place. That candidate is Paris Hilton. Watch Ms. Hilton's hilarious political video here, before you read any further.

Paris shoots, Paris scores. Take that, John McCain. That's what the Wrinkly Dude gets for using Paris in one of his political ads. Paris also doesn't engage in cheap vacuous sloganeering like the Change Guy (Barack Obama) does. She is a substantive candidate, but definitely outclasses the Change Guy in the style deparment too. I mean, can you imagine Obama in a bikini ? Ewww. Paris also wears the latest designer fashions. That's style, my friends. As proof of her substance, I'll repeat Paris Hilton's energy policy here, which leaves the Change Guy's plan in the dust.

“Why don’t we do a hybrid of both candidates’ ideas (drilling and alternative technologies) ? That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved. I’ll see you at the debates, b—–s. …I’m Paris Hilton and I approve this message ‘cause I think it’s totally hot.”

Right on, Paris ! Your message IS totally hot. You have demonstrated the ability to be post-partisan and unite the American people. You are the change that the Change Guy only pretends to be, and you definitely aren't the same as Bush, like the Dems claim the Wrinkly Dude is. It's true that Paris doesn't have any foreign policy experience, military experience, management experience, business experience, or executive experience, but neither does the Change Guy, so that apparently makes no difference. The presidency has been declared an entry-level position by the Democrats for this election cycle.

Also, Paris is a rich heiress. That doesn't hurt. Obviously, Republicans love rich people. Everyone knows that. Bush called them his "base" a few years back, and the Dems really like rich people too, even though they pretend they don't. I mean, the wife of the Dems last presidential candidate, John Kerry, was a rich heiress, just like Paris. You figure it out. Money talks.

Paris Hilton in 2008 - Change We Can Believe In.

The main problem with America's health care system isn't too difficult to determine. The problem is, health care is way too expensive. It's so expensive that many people can't afford it. It's so expensive that many people forego health care insurance. As an example, a friend of mine recently went to see a specialist to diagnose his back injury. That office visit cost $765. He then had two MRI's at a cost of $4500. The total cost was $5265 just for my friend to receive a diagnosis of his back injury (a fracture). No treatment of his injury was included for that price. This is just one tiny example of the insanely high costs associated with health care in this country. Here are some numbers about the high cost of health care from the non-partisan National Coalition On Health Care:

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP. In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

Keep this in mind as we compare the health care plans of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. I'd take it as a given that any health care plan that doesn't attempt to reign in these crazily high costs will ultimately collapse under it's own weight, and is therefore a bad plan for America.

The Obama and McCain health care plans are pretty much polar opposites. Obama's is centered around government control and McCain's is centered on free markets. Here's how the Cato Institute summarized the respective plans:

Senator Obama’s approach relies heavily on government mandates, regulations, and subsidies. He would mandate that employers provide health care coverage for their workers and that parents purchase health insurance for their children. He would significantly increase regulation of the insurance industry, establishing a standard minimum benefits package, and requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health. He would offer a variety of new and expanded subsidies to middle- and low-income Americans. [Link to Obama's website for details on his health care plan]

In contrast, John McCain emphasizes consumer choice and greater competition in the health care industry. He would move away from our current employment-based insurance system by replacing the current tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit for individuals. At the same time he would sharply deregulate the insurance industry to increase competition. [Link to McCain's website for details on his health care plan]

HEALTH CARE COST REDUCTION: Both Obama and McCain make a claim for cost control in their health care plans.

Obama promises to modernize the heath care system to save money. After reading from his website several of the methods he'll use (integrate care, monitor providers, preventive care, catastrophic illness subsidization, cost transparency, electronic technology), I'm unconvinced they will reduce the cost of health care at all. It's as if Obama thinks he can micromanage the entire private health care industry, which is definitely beyond his grasp. He also promises to subsidize those who cannot afford insurance and calls that cost control, when it isn't. Subsidization is just another word for taxation. That is cost redistribution, not cost reduction. When I look at Obama's plan from a cost control standpoint, I see many new government mandates and regulations on health care providers and insuerers, and those invariably increase costs, not lower them. Where Obama's health care plan CAN reduce costs is through government intervention in the marketplace, through directly mandated lower costs. The Obama plan proposes to limit the amount of profit insurance companies can make, requiring them to funnel 'excess' profits into lower patient premiums. 'Excess' profit remains undefined by Obama (has anyone else noticed that liberals are attempting to gradually outlaw business profits ? Creep, creep, creep). Obama also proposes to lower prescription drug prices by allowing drugs to be purchased at lower prices in Canada and overseas (look kids ! a market-based reform ! This one would probably work. Yippee !…but what about FDA approval on those foreign drugs ?), and he would also allow the government to 'negotiate' with drug companies.

John McCain's health care plan would provide greater competition between insurance companies by allowing those companies to compete for business nationwide, instead of on a state-by-state basis. Like Obama, McCain would allow re-importation of drugs, greater use of generic drugs, coordinated care, prevention measures, new medical infrastructure, transparency, and technology. McCain wants to make Medicare more efficient. He also wants to pass tort reform to stop lawsuits against doctors who follow clinical guidelines and follow safety protocols. The heart of McCain's health care reform, however, is direct refundable tax credits for health care. Individuals would receive a $2500 tax credit, families a $5000 tax credit, to offset the high costs of insurance. This helps offset the cost of insurance to Americans without involving the iron hand of government, which I love, but it doesn't lower the costs of health care. Also, if you remember how much health insurance costs on the average ($4400 individual, $12000 family of four), McCain's health care credits don't cover it all, they just make coverage cheaper.

In the end, neither Obama's nor McCain's plan will probably alleviate the massive costs of health care significantly, though each could have some cost reduction effects. My buddy's back problem would still cost a bundle just for a diagnosis. Obama's plan would go further toward insuring the uninsured, though it won't achieve nor mandate universal coverage. Obama recently said that illegal immigrants would not be covered under his plan. Illegals make up a significant portion of those 47 million uninsured in America. Obama's plan will cost the taxpayers a bundle, while McCain's plan will save the taxpayers a bundle (but offset by what spending cuts, Johnny ? We can't keep running deficits, and you also promised to balance the budget). I'd prefer to save taxpayers a bundle, so I like McCain's approach better than Obama's. Obama's approach would be a giant step toward socialized medicine, which is tanking in Canada and Europe. It results in rationed care and long waits for treatment, and ends with the government telling you what medical procedures you can and can't have. And if you think lobbying and influence peddling is bad now, wait until the government controls such a huge chunk of our economy as health care. It'll be corruption city. No thanks. Obama's plan would also be very burdensome for small businesses and even large businesses, whom Obama would penalize if they didn't provide health care insurance coverage for their employees. McCain's plan allows for business growth, especially small business growth, by transferring the ever increasing health care burden away from business. That is a very big deal economically. McCain's plan will provide a tangential economic stimulus that would result in rising wages, lower prices, or lower unemployment. Obama's provides an economic damper that would result in lower wages, higher prices, and higher unemployment.

Verdict: McCain's plan is far from perfect, and it won't solve the uninsured problem (though it'll reduce it), but Obama's Big Brother, Big Tax, Big Spend approach scares the bejesus out of an old rumrunner like myself. Them dad-burned revenooers. Git the buckshot, Cletus. There has to be a better way.