Diary of a Mighty Bastard

Gov. Sarah Palin announced she will be stepping down as Governor of Alaska in a few weeks.

That's unfortunate. People are speculating why, and I certainly hope it's not because of family illness. On the other hand, she was elected to serve a full term, and stepping down without a good reason is poor form, and not fair to the people of Alaska.

She's an extremely charismatic politician- one of the best I've seen, and (In my humble opinion) the best Republican Speaker since Reagan. And she was a very capable governor- her approval rating was over 80%, and she her track record showed her as a Governor who fought corruption (including against her own party) and with a Libertarian streak that belied her religious beliefs.

Did I think she should have been the Republican VP nominee? No. One half of a term as Governor is not enough experience to be in a position to run the country. I would have liked for her to remain governor for about 3 terms and then step onto the National Stage. And she wasn't prepared for dealing with the foreign policy issues of the day.

That being said, I found the treatment of her by the media to be absolutely vulgar. It was fine to question her opinions or competency. But there were more below the belt attacks at her, her husband, and her children than any non-President I had ever seen. Andrew Sullivan went from being an interesting writer who's opinion I respect to turning into a vile cheap shot artist.

And it continued, long past the election. No one attacks John McCain anymore. But Dave Letterman had no problem making a crack about her 14 year old daughter.

I'll be honest- I was really hoping she'd win just to see the people who attacked her choke on their bile. The attacks on her family was one of most disgusting things I've seen in politics, and I'm of the belief that most politics attacks are fair game.

It didn't happen, and maybe she's out of politics for good. It's going to be hard for her to restart after stepping down in mid-term (as it should be- barring illness, there's no good reason to step down as Governor)

Then again, maybe not. If she waited until she was as old as Hilary was in 2008, Sarah Palin would be running in... 2024. That's a long time, and a lot could happen.

The House passed a climate bill yesterday.

According to the CBO, this bill will cost the average American family about $175 a year. To stop "climate change", which I think means that the weather should never change again.

Note- the temperature has gone up around the world an average of 1 degree Centigrade over the past 100 years. No one can say with conviction if (a) that 1 degree is man made, as opposed to a natural change on the earth (b) the consequences, if any, of that one degree or (c) what the temperature of the earth will be in the next Century.

I'll add (d)- no one is really sure what this bill will do, if anything, to change (a) through (c).

So, during a recession, Congress has passed a bill that will hurt the lower income families much more than the wealthier people for what can be best called 'a feel-good measure'.

But even that isn't why I think this is a joke. If Congress wants to pass this bill, fine. The voters will remember and act accordingly during next year's election.

What I'm furious about is that, not only has no one in Congress actually read the bill that was passed, The bill did not officially exist yet!

There is no other way to put this- any Congress person who voted on this bill, without reading and knowing what they wanted to voted on, is guilty of Dereliction of Duty and should be fired from their job.

Governor Sanford of South Carolina admits an affair.

Moron. Idiot. I'm really, really pissed off.

At first, I was trying to figure out why- until a couple of months ago, I had never heard of Sanford. Then he was the Governor who was refusing Stimulus funds. Then he became the Governor who went on a Walkabout. Which I thought was a good thing- people make so much out of politics that I thought it was awesome there was someone out there who said, "You know what? It's not the end of the world for me to take a couple days off. The state's fine without me."

That was just an excuse to meet up with his Mistress. So it was much more of a Rompabout.

But thinking about it some more, I realize the source of frustration. It's just one more way the GOP has shot itself in the foot and made itself a laughingstock.

Now, I can live with that as a partisan- parties go up and down (the Democrats looked hopeless not seven years ago). But we're dealing with a lot of serious issues here.

President Obama wants to make significant changes in our society- in health care, in ouur environmental responsiblities, in our business dealings. I'm very skeptical about the directions he wants to take us, and what the consequences could be. But I'm also willing to believe (a) I could be wrong and (b) he won the election and will try to push his agenda.

But we're a system of checks and balances. And right now, every check and balance that could look at his ideas and test them out before they are implemented is seriously crippled:

* Congress is full of corrupt, incompetent partisans who are far more concerned with winning elections than actually debating the issues.

* The loyal opposition party (The GOP) is irrelevant, without a coherent message or philosophy, and find new ways to shoot themselves in the foot (The 50 most powerful politicans at the moment are Democrats, but the next week will be full of stories about Sanford. Watch)

* The media- how do I say this tactfully?- has voluntarily given up trying to be objective critics and willingly play groupies to our Rock Star President

* And we seem to have a culture that has gone from assuming the worst about the President to one that thinks he can do know wrong, and never wishes to criticize him.

That last point scares the hell out of me, more than the others. We're a country that always mocks our leaders- we're built around the idea that our leaders are human, make bad calls, and screw up as badly as anyone else. Every former President I can recall was mocked for something- Ford's clumsiness, Reagan's forgetfulness, Clinton's randiness. It was a way to remind people that while we can respect the office, we do not deify our leaders.

Mentally, I keep telling myself that this can't last forever. Eventually, Congress will get some leaders that actually want to do more than get elected. The GOP can't screw up this badly forever (though it sure seems that way). And I suspect there will reach a tipping point, that the media and culture will start to actually test and question the President (in fact, I think it may even cause a backlash, in which case the President would get an unfair reaction. But we shall see).

But until that happens, I will wonder when the checks and balances will be fixed.

President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. A few random thoughts:

* She's qualified- 10 years on the Court of Appeals, former District Attorney, Former partner in a law firm

* She's not the first person of Latin descent on the Supreme Court. Benjamin Cardozo was Portugeuse, and served on the Supremem Court for six years.
===> UPDATE: Portugeuse is not considered Hispanic. My apologies for the error.

* I'm certain she has a lot of positions that I won't agree with. But so will anyone that Obama nominates. The question for me is "Is the person qualified?" By that standard, I'd say yes.

* The GOP will go through her record to see if there's any smoking guns in her past. That's fine- it's the Supreme Court, her record should be tested- but unless something develops, I don't see any reason not to approve her.

* Her specialty seems to be intellectual property law. Given a lot of issues that come up in that category (RIAA), she may become the key figure on any rulings in this category.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich warns that Conservatives may leave the GOP in 2012.

I think it's very unlikely- but I also think it's possible.

Right now, there's a pretty serious debate as to what it means to be a Republican. Or maybe I should say there should be. Quick- name any issue that Rudolph Guiliani and Mick Huckabee would agree on. They have very different philosophies and different opinions on the issues. And yet both are considered top leaders of the minority party.

What I suspect- what I'm afraid of- is that the Republicans will settle for nothing more than "What Obama wants, we're opposed to." It's what drove the Democrats in the 80's, the Republicans in the 90's, and the Democrats in the 2000's. They were defined, not by their own principles, but by whatever made the President unpopular.

Third parties have started up before- remember H. Ross Perot?- and fizzled before- remember anything that he stood for, besides being a pox on both parties?

I can tell you the policial philosophy and ideas that I'd like to support. They would have a platform something like this:

* A government that doesn't do many things- but does the things it should well.
* Deficit spending is a long-term financial nightmare. We would reduce, not just the deficit, but the debt, through significant spending cuts and taxes as needed
* No bailouts (with the possible exception of victims of fraud and force). Not for individuals, not for companies, not for anyone
* Moving towards autonomy with energy is in our interests. I'm against government spending in general but on this issue I can argue that a program, similar to the Space program of the 60's, could be in the best interests of the country
* Free trade is good for both the United States economy and for the world as a whole- no economic protectionism
* Removal of United States army bases from foreign lands except when they are required directly for the interests of the United States. Europe doesn't need the US to have bases in Germany, and Korea and Japan can handle their own security. This reduces our financial burden, and allows the other nations to become more self-reliant on their own security matters
* Social Issues- ideally, I'm a pro-life libertarian. But I think the best solution here might be to encourage federalism. If North Dakota wants to be a teetoaler state that bans pot, cigarettes, and alcohol- while South Dakota allows and even encourages such activities- that might be the best answer

Right now, neither party is serious about any of these issues.

Do I think a third party like this would start up? Possibly but doubtful.

Most likely, there will be a lot of sound and fury from the Republicans that signify nothing, and a platform in 2012 that amounts to nothing more than "Obama is a fool/moron/empty suit/hippie, and we promise to make everything better." And while I really haven't liked 95% of what Obama has done or wants to do, I'd like a better alternative than that.

* I almost have to have some admiration for Gov. Blagojevich. Given taped evidence of him bragging about selling the Senate seat to the highest bidder, he actually has the chutzpah to claim innocence and dare the rest of the government to kick him out. And who knows? He might get away with it.

* That being said, I'm not sure selling the seat isn't the best thing. Seriously- auction the rest of the term off to the highest bidder, with the explicit statement that the money goes to the state treasury. Even given that a person nominated by the Illinois governor would be better than someone with money who wants to buy the spot, would that person be so good it'd make up for the 5-10 million that could be used by the state of Illinois? Just a thought.

* And I have to admit that I find it strange that people thinking that selling the Senate seat is a horrible thing, while giving it to Caroline Kennedy based on her family name. If she wants the seat.

* From what I've seen of Obama's cabinet, I've been very impressed. One exception- John Holdren as Science Advisor. Anyone who is a supporter of Paul Ehrlich should not be advising the President.

* And I'd like to thank President Bush for deciding that Congress doesn't know what they are doing, and giving the auto industry $17 billion Of course, he's not writing the check- he's having us do it. It's taken almost 8 years, but I probably think less of President Bush than even lurkerwithout does.

* And on that note, Merry Christmas to all

Just some various thoughts as I recover from a work month of hell:

- Politics: I've taken a very detahced look at politics lately, because there's no serious political option for what I believe in (I'm against bailouts of all sorts). It gives me a chance to watch Obama and Congress in action without having any dogs in the fight.

- Congress, IMHO, is still a bunch of morons (I'm against the bailout, but Congress basically demanded that the heads of GM, Ford, and Chrysler put on a dog and pony show for them without addressing the real problems; it was embarassing for all parties)

- As for Obama, he's shown me to be very cautious and do a good job of speaking without committing to anything. I really don't know what he'll do once he takes the Oath of Office.

- Rumors are that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel helped push the arrest of Gov. Blagojevich this week. I certainly hope so. it was going to happen eventually, and by happening now, they remove this embarassment before Obama becomes President. This is just smart politics.

- On sports, CC Sabathia signed a 7 year, $160 million deal with the Yankees. CC is a great pitcher, but I'd be wary of signing any starting pitcher for seven years.

- The Cleveland Cavaliers have started the season on fire. As a Cleveland fan, I'm desperate for a world championship in one of the three major sports. The Browns has fizzled, and the Indians are good but had injur problems. The Cavs this year are th ebest chance of winning that championship in a long while.

He earned the victory, and I wish him well during the next four years. As a Conservative, I don't agree with a lot of his policies. But he's still my President, as well as every US Citizen's President.

/salute

Wednesday morning starts the countdown to the 2012 Presidential Election.

It's been a strange Presidential Campaign (though I guess they all are, in their own unique ways). It's also been a long one- I think a lot of people can't wait for it to be over. Some thoughts as we wind down.

1) My prediction on who wins, right off the bat. I think Obama takes 40 states. It won't be close.

Obama's been the focus of the election- everyone's been talking about him, the way that people did about Clinton in 1992 or Reagan in 1980. Combine that with 80% of the country feeling we're going in the wrong direction, plus the fact that he's run a great campaign, and he should win easily.

I suspect the Democrats will gain about 8-10 seats in the House, but that's just a guess. They'll increase their Senate, but I don't think they'll make 60 seats to make it filibuster-proof.

2) Part of me suspects that no one in the GOP had a chance this year. But if McCain did, it vanished in October with the Bailout. Not only did the economy really go into Freefall, but we had a President and Treasury Secretary acting like Chicken Little ("The Dow is Falling! The Dow is Falling!")

I have to admit- I was expecting some sort of Foreign Policy Crisis would develope in 2008 that would make people wonder if they would prefer the veteran McCain over the newcomer Obama. Instead, the crisis came from the economy, which is an area that McCain doesn't really care about. Add that to Bush's response, and it's no wonder people want change.

3) Most campaigns, I can usually pick out a person I don't like personally, and it makes it easy to vent my spleen about them. 2004 was easy, for instance. I cannot stand John Kerry, for a lot of reasons.

This time, not so much. I like Obama. I like McCain. I disagree with Obama on about 15,000 issues, and question if he'll be a good President. But I don't have the venom I usually have. Maybe I'm just getting calmer as I get older...

4) Nah- I still cannot stand Congress, and the media this year has just been absolutely awful. The fact that people like John Murtha and Barney Frank will cruise to re-election irks me a lot more than the idea that Obama will be President. And the media has been absolutely atrocious- biased, for more interested in 'getting' people than in reporting the actual news, and cheapshot artists. I'm not surprised that The New York Times is losing money- they deserve to.

5) I'm frustrated because I'm a small-government Conservative who doesn't see either candidate representing my views. I absoutely despised the bailout, yet both candidates eagerly supported it. Then again, I don't know if there was any serious candidate who does. At times, I regret not joining the Ron Paul Bandwagon.

6) In the end, I'm still voting for McCain in November. I'll give three reasons why.

* While I don't agree with him on a lot issues, I agree with him more than Obama
* The lack of experience with Obama still worries me. Yes, he's run a fantastic campaign. So did Jimmy Carter in 1976. Being President and running the country are two different things. And he's got such a limited track record that I have no idea what direction he'll end up taking the country.
* Congress will still be Democratic. Given that I think governement tends to screw up when it does... well, anything, I'm a big fan of gridlock. Especially with this Congress. I suspect one of Obama's biggest problems will be preventing the Congressional Democrats from overreaching and setting off a big backlash.

7) Sarah Palin. Do I think she is ready for the Presidency? No. Do I think she's a great politician? Hell yes. Do I think she was the victim of the most vicious and unfair assault since Dan Quayle? Absolutely.

In retrospect, I wish McCain had given her the Keynote convention spot at the convention, like Kerry did with Obama in 2004. It would have set her up without putting her in the spotlight immediately.

But she will remain a power player for the GOP, and we shall see what she learns from this experience.

8) This is most likely my last political comment until after the election. I really don't have much else to say. Good luck to both candidates.

Been gathering my thoughts on the bailout and other economic issues over the past few days...

1) Either we're in a crisis that will freeze up credit and send us into a Depression, or we aren't. If we aren't, then ramming a $700 Billion takeover of the mortgage Industry is a bad idea in principle and a worse idea in execution. If we are, then why is the bill full of earmarks that have nothing to do with the core issues?

2) Which isn't to say things aren't serious. We probably are heading for a serious recession, along the lines of 1974 or 1982. But the US has been through recessions before. They suck. But it's not a cause for nationalizing the banking industry.

3) We do need to figure out (a) how we got into this mess and (b) what we can do to see it doesn't happen again. I know the basics- the banks accepted rotten mortgages. What I don't know is why they did this- was it because no one ever thought the real estate bubble would burst? Or did they believe the government would bail out whoever was caught holding the mortgages when things went wrong? I'm all for ideas and law that improve the oversight of financial deals. And those laws can be passed without having a 700 billion dollar price tag. We need better laws, not a blank check.

4) This was my final straw with the Bush Presidency- and the current GOP in general. If they are going to panic and call for socialism (and Paulsen's comments made things much much worse), then a pox on them.

5) Actually, a pox on government as a whole. They are having a hissy fit about banks, but can't even pass any of their own budget bills

Couple of random thoughts, as I recover from being deemed not so scary anymore (though I really really REALLY hate spiders)

* First and most importantly. Seven years ago, we were attacked by depraved men who killed over 3,000 innocent people. A lot has passed over seven years, but the attack should not be forgotten. My thoughts go out to everyone who lost a loved one that day.

* The whole "Lipstick on a Pig" thing is overblown. McCain and company should just laugh it off. Bringing it up makes them look like whiners.

Here's the thing- during a campaign (and this one has been going on for over two years), every sentence a nominee says can become a soundbite. Everything a person does can be made to look bad. How many missteps did Bush or Clinton make during their runs? I can guarantee you we can find a dozen examples for every Presidential nominee in the past 50 years. You learn to recover and move on to the next speech, and the whole thing blows over. But stop griping about it (this applies to both parties)- the American voters don't like whiners, and they do like people who can bounce back.

* The Free Republic has a great article, comparing both Obama and Palin's popularity to bubbles. Obama was riding a huge wave of popularity than was inevitably going to burst, and right now Palin is riding something very similar. Palin's bubble will also bust in the future (and probably pretty soon- there's too much that will happen between now and November for it to last until the election).

Right now, there's been so much garbage thrown at Palin that it's caused a backlash- even valid criticisms about her are blown off as 'just another attack'. That works today, but I don't see it working for two months. It probably won't work past the debate with Joe Biden. At some point, the real grey spots on her record (and everyone has them) will stick with the public.

But when Palin's bubble does bust, the McCain camp will attempt to change the story and remind people that she's the Vice-President while he's the President- when valid criticisms on Palin do stick, the party will start emphasizing McCain as both the top of the ticket and the one who will mentor her in Washington Politics.

Obama fascinates me at this point, because this is the first time he's ever been behind. Not just in this race, but in any race. He won his State Senate seat by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot . His opponent in the Senate race imploded. He shocked everyone by winning Iowa, then was always ahead after Super Tuesday for the President.

As a rule, Americans love comeback stories. They also don't like coronations. Compared to most Presidential candidates, Obama's had an easier time because he's always been ahead, and everyone else has been playing catch-up with him. This is the first time he's ever been behind, and I'm curious to see how he reacts.

Can he bounce back? Yes, he can. But learning to bounce back comes from experience. He might not get his footing back until it's too late.

Forget Palin. Forget Biden. In the end, the two people who will decide the election are McCain and Obama- and Obama has a much better chance to change opinions about him (for good or for ill) than McCain.

* Moving away from politics, congrats to Gib and his wife on their pregnancy (well, technically her pregnancy)

* I'm still in shell-shock over Tom Brady and the obliteration of my fantasy football team. As an experiment, I'm rooting for the USC Trojans to beat Ohio State this weekend.

* The Indian's season is winding down. For me, however, the race is to see how they finished in AL Runs scored. I made a bet that they'd finish in the top half of the AL. Right now, out of 14 teams, they are in 8th place- four runs behind the Yankees- and have 2 more games to play than the Yankees do. We'll see how it pans out.

Two sides of the same coin:

* Young
* Relatively Inexperienced (four years as a Senator vs. Two Years as a Governor)
* Charismatic
* Is considered a bright prospect for their party, who is in a position of power much sooner than anyone would have suspected
* Solid, stable families that they rely on
* Give off a feeling of being normal that reassures people, compared to most politicians
* Is considered to have rather 'extreme' political positions
* Has been associated with a church with radical beliefs (Jeremiah Wright or Jews for Jesus)
* Bring a level of excitement to their parties that was missing. The excitement I've seen from the GOP on Palin is EXACTLY the same excitement that Obama brought the Democrats earlier in the year.

No wonder people are acting so crazy talking about either one of them- they are practically mirror images of each other. The number of people I've seen who have loved one and froth at the mouth over the other is incredible.

I like Palin. I like Obama- I just disagree with his ideas. And I don't think either is ready to be President. But I'm trying not to slip into the pools of vitriol that seem to be everywhere.

Once elected, what do you expect Obama to do as President?

This isn't trying to be a 'gotcha' question or anything- I'm being serious here.

I know people are really frustrated/pissed/annoyed at the GOP- believe me, I am as well. And that might be enough to get Obama elected.

But I honestly think that if I asked 10 different Obama supporters what they expect him to once he's in the office, I'll not only get 10 different answers... I'll get 10 contradictory answers. Which means someone is going to be very disappointed.

So tell me- what do you think he'll do once he's elected?

One of the best columns I read about Conservatives and Liberals was by Jonah Goldberg, who commented that Liberals weren't arguing with each other. They were discussin tactics, not principles, partly because they were insulated in a cocoon. The only people they ever talked to were people that agreed with them, so they never had their ideas tested.

A famous story had movie critic Pauline Kael complain after 1972 that "No one I know voted for Nixon.". Considering Nixon won 49 states, it's used to show how insular a group can be.

The problem is... Conservatives have gotten just as insular as we mocked the liberals for being.

It's been building a while. I was amazed how close John Kerry came to winning in 2004. I thought the Republicans would hold onto at least part of Congress in 2006. And reading many of the Conservative web sites, you'd think that the Obama "fad" will evaporate any moment.

It used to be that all of the networks and mainstream papers were so tilted to the left that anyone on the right side of the political arguement was constantly barraged every time they voiced their opinion. But thanks to Rush Limbaugh and Fox, the Right have created a media to combat the left. But in the process, we've become just as insulated from criticism as they are.

When the gay marriage debate broke out, I remember a split among the National Review columnists over whether gays should be allowed to marry. I could see the principles on both sides being argued. I can think of a lot of issues that should be debated, but haven't been- and aren't right now (on both sides of the aisle, but I'm more familiar with the Right-Wing).

Now? National Review doesn't argue principles as much as tactics. We've become as bad as the people we used to mock. I think it's going to take getting our clocks cleaned in November before we shake things up. And when that happens, I don't want to be the guy who said "How could Obama win? Everyone I know voted for McCain."

When I wrote my post before, I didn't realize one piece of information: John McCain only met Sarah Palin once before deciding on her as the Vice Presidential nominee.

I'm sorry- that's not a gamble; that's stupidly reckless.

Everything I've seen about Sarah Palin, I've liked. I think she has a very good chance as a leader of the GOP- even as a President- in the future.

But for McCain to make this decision after meeting her once is reckless on his part. I would have been MUCH happier if he had picked Joe Lieberman, because I believe he really thinks Lieberman could take over as President if needed.

There's no way someone could make that decision after one meeting.

I like Gov. Palin. I hope she does very well. My comments don't reflect on her at all.

But they don't reflect on John McCain very well.

I made my comments on Obama's pick for Biden. Now it's the GOP's turn, as John McCain named Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice President Choice.

Unlike Obama's pick, this is hardly a safe choice. Using the same four criteria that I used before:

1- If anything should happen to the President, could the VP step into the office and take over the duties as President?

2- Does the VP help the President with any perceived weaknesses of the Presidential candidate?

3- Will the VP nominee hurt the Presidential candidate?

4- Can the VP nominee help the Presidential nominee get elected?

(1)- The biggest problem. She's been mayor of a town, and Governor of Alaska for 2 years. I'll argue she has more experience than Obama does (and in terms of exceutive experience, has more experience than all of the other three). I'd really feel a lot better if she had more than one term as governor

(2)- She'll definitely help. She's a solid Conservative on the issues, while McCain has had problems with the base. She's a known battler of both corruption and pork spending (much better than the current administration). She helps with the GOP's problem of being a party of "Old White Men"

(3)- Could she hurt? Absolutely. She could be another Dan Quayle (a relatively unknown GOP rising star who wasn't ready for Presidential politics). From what I've seen, she's been very impressive. But she hasn't been put under the microscope like the other candidates. It's very possible she will make a verbal gaffe that will haunt her and McCain...

(4)- ... but she could also really help McCain win the election. Not that the VP pick alone will help someone win. But I've been checking with my fellow members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy... they love this pick. They've been more excitied about this pick than anytime in the last 3-4 years.

This is a high-risk but high-reward move, for McCain and Palin. For the next two months, she's going to be put through the wringer. If she can handle the pressure, she will be a tremendous asset to McCain- and will set herself up for the future (my guess- if McCain loses and she does a good job, she's the nominee in 2012).

Would I have made this pick, if I were McCain? not if I thought I'd win without her. Gov. Palin is doing a great job in Alaska, but I'd want her to have another term before I'd put her on the ticket.

But I don't think McCain can win, as things stand now. McCain needed something to shake up the campaign (Obama, OTOH, just needed not to screw up). This qualifies. We'll see if it works out.

As a Conservative, I have hopeful trepidation. I want her to do well. But it's a gamble.

I don't like Obama's economic ideas at all. When the chips are down, I'd rather have McCain in the White House than Obama. I think it's ridiculous to put a man with such a thin resume into being Commander-in-Chief. With the Democrats sure to keep control of Congress, Gridlock is a good thing.

But damn, McCain makes it hard to support him:

Quoting from him:
=========================
In the interview this morning, McCain suggested that Ridge would be more palatable to social conservatives than Bloomberg.

"I think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a--albeit strong--but just it's
a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far moreso than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues."
=========================

So now being anti-gay is such a big part of the GOP that it trumps being pro-life?

Stupid, stupid, stupid. And wrong on so many levels.

Look- Conservatives ought to be encouraging gay marriage. Stable, monogamous relationships are a GOOD THING.

If this is what the GOP has come to represent, then yeah... we deserve to get slaughtered on election day. Give us four years out in the wilderness to remember what we are and what we should believe in.

1) My only comment on the John Edwards situation- I really, really thought he had bad ideas about the country, and I'm glad he won't have a job in the administration. That being said, my best wishes to him and his family during this time.

2) The situation regarding Russia and Georgia is dangerous, and I'm not sure what the proper response should be (or if there's even a 'proper' response, as opposed to just a series of bad choices). I worry that things will get much worse there before they get better.

3) One thing I wish we would insist on both of our Presidential candidates- announce your nominees for the cabinet before the election. One of the most important qualities of a President is who they pick to work with. I want to see who Obama picks as his Secretary of Defense, who McCain thinks is a good Attorney General. Even better, demand that they both suggest three names they would consider for a Supreme Court Justice.

We don't- in fact, the only position we really require of them to pick is their Vice President selection. More names would give us a better idea of what both men would be like as President, and I wish we would insist on getting some ideas from our nominees on who THEY think would make a good cabinet.

I'm a Republican. I admit it. And most of my friends are liberal. OK, fine.

There's trash-talking on both sides. This year, I'm getting hit pretty hard, because the GOP has screwed up.

And most comments, I can roll off my back without getting angry. Hell, it's just politics- it shouldn't be that important. Whoever the President is will screw up 1,000 ways- hopefully they'll get 2-3 rights in the process.

The GOP-Democrat arguements should be like Red Sox-Yankees. Lots of trash-talking and venting about the other side, but you go home afterwards and forget about it. Or even have a beer with the person afterwards.

But last night one of my left-winged friends made a comment that sent me off- as in venting, railing, cursing (which I try not to do). The comment (paraphrased):

"If Obama loses, it's because of racism"

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.

I'm not planning on voting for Obama, and racism has nothing to do with it. I disagree with his ideas, and I don't think he has enough experience to be President.

The thing about 'racist' is that it kills arguements. You can't sway an opinion or make a reasonable exchange, if the other person is convinced you're a racist. It's an evil, low term and not worthy of intelligent discussion. And the fact that's it's thrown around so casually REALLY pisses me off.

Like I said, I'll let most things roll off my back. But not this one- I hear this comment, I'm getting in people's faces about it.