ddain's Blog

I liked "Maverick" John McCain when he ran for President in 2000. I thought he was more appealing than W. because he was more to the center  (and less polarizing) than Bush. But in the Republican party, that's not good enough to get elected. You have to make sure your views are more right than center, and that's why W. got elected. Twice.

That's where McCain is now. He's not known as a "maverick" for his political views anymore. He's firmly entrenched on the right, where the pro-gun, pro-war, pro-life people reside. And that might be enough for him to get elected in a couple of months.

But if he was truly the "maverick" he used to be, Joe Lieberman would be his running mate and not Sarah Palin.

The facts that are dribbling out about Palin since she was named to the ticket are not flattering, and are not helping the Republican cause. She may have broken the law by getting her ex-brother-in-law canned from his State Trooper job in Alaska. Sure, in theory wouldn't we all want to fire a jerk relative? A nice thought, but you can't really do it when you're the Governor of the state that he works in.

And now this about her pregnant daughter (the one holding the baby). While many run out the "who cares" argument or the "you can't control your kids" stance, the problem is that Palin promotes abstinence, and obviously, the lesson didn't sink in with her kid. It's hard to be taken seriously when you have a stance about an issue, but don't adhere to it in life.

But I find it more than a little ironic how Democratic people are calling Palin a "hypocrite" when the Democratic mantra for years has been, "Do As I Say, Not As I Do." The first evidence of this mindset that comes to mind are in the form of Al Gore's electrical bills.

Here are some other random political thoughts that you can comment on.

Hard to believe that there was no mention of the "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy letting Mary Jo Kopechne die in a car and not bothering to report it to the authorities until the following morning by the liberal-minded media. And this is the type of person who gets a standing ovation?

Do you think Hillary is asking herself if it was worth sacrificing her dignity all of those years Bill cheated on her? I figured she stuck with him so she could run, and win, the presidency, and that's not happening. So if she knew that this would be the result of staying with him, do you think she would make the same decision twice?

I'm not sure why McCain picked Palin in the first place. It's not like the highly-Conservative right wasn't going to vote for him anyway, so he doesn't need her to shore up their vote. And I can't imagine disenchanted Hillary supporters voting for her simply because she's a woman, since she and Hillary don't have much in common politically. So why is she on the ticket?

It's tough to say that it's OK for Barack Obama to not have much foreign policy experience and vote for him because Palin has no foreign policy experience and she's on a ticket. The difference is that the person without this vital experience is at the top of the ticket for the Dems, and not for the Republicans.

Do you think it's possible that if McCain wins, he could step aside after his first-term ends and Palin could be elevated to run for President? If that happens, wouldn't that really sting the Dems who take pride on race and gender issues?

Lest anyone think that most of the mainstream media (TV, cable, newspapers, radio) isn't liberally biased, please read on.

All you have to do is think about how long it took them to cover the John Edwards story. The last thing the lefty-media wanted was for one of its darlings to be outed by a tabloid rag, right? So they never paid much attention to it until last week when they had no choice but to cover it. The media never gave the Enquirer any credibility, and they didn't do any of their own fact-finding or investigating. So it seems that they all dropped the ball. Kudos to the National Enquirer for breaking the story, shooting pictures, and sticking to their sources and facts. They're more reputable than the rest of the "media" right now.

It sickens me that anyone can excuse this guy's behavior. He cheated on his wife who has cancer. That's pretty bad. She apparently knew about the affair, and in a move that reeks of stupidity, they both thought it would be OK for him to run for President (as if this secret would stay buried forever). Both of them are arrogant, especially Edwards with his $400 haircuts and his history of making money by being an ambulance-chasing attorney, the lowest type of lawyer.

And when the National Enquirer broke this story last month, no media outlet picked it up! It's not that they didn't think it was true, but they like Edwards, and were no doubt hoping the whole thing would simply go away and get swept under a rug. In an interview last month, Edwards flat-out denied (lied) about having the affair in the first place. Smugness reigns!

Something to remember here about this case, and all others that involve philandering politicians. You don't excuse their actions by saying something moronic like, "They all do it" because they don't, and it's still an immoral and dishonest thing to do. Justifying bad behavior with other bad behavior doesn't make it right, it makes it easy to rationalize and accept if the candidate is your guy.

Many ask the question, "Well would it make a difference in how a person governs?" Of course it does! It's apparent someone like Edwards has no morality,  no integrity, and doesn't care about what's right and what's wrong, and he apparently has little respect for his terminally-ill wife. Would you want someone with those characteristics leading this country, making important decisions that will impact us for decades? Not me.

And don't believe the bull when people say that it's none of our business what they do in their personal lives. That means that it really doesn't matter where Barack Obama went to church, or that Ted Kennedy killed a woman when he drove off a bridge, or that Randy Cunningham took bribes. It's all about character, something these people sorely lack.

And if you don't think that John Edwards isn't the father of that woman's child, then I have some beach-front property in Utah to sell you for cheap. Don't be naive and/or stupid, if his mistress agrees to take a paternity test, she loses all of the "hush" money he's been giving her over the past few years. That's why she won't do it, because if she does, well he gets to pay her child support, which I'm sure is a lot less than what he's paying her now.

Goodbye and good riddance to one of the scummiest, dirtiest, and most arrogant politicians in recent U.S. history. And considering some of the company he joins, that's not a compliment.

There is no doubt that the nomination of Barack Obama for President is a great story about how far this country has come in terms of dealing with its racist past. Whether you like Obama or not, it's a wonderful sign that he's in position to become the president of this country considering it's sordid past.

But not everyone is probably happy about, namely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Consider how Jesse and Al are always playing the race card when talking about how poorly black people are faring in our country today. Of course they're premise that all that is wrong with the black community (in their eyes) is due to the white man and the obstacles he as put in place, but still, having a black person one big step away from being President of this country has to hurt their cause. And this, is a good thing.

Think about this:
For the last eight years we've had black Secretaries of State.
We have a Supreme Court Justice who is black, and we've had a black man be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Home ownership among blacks is up.
We have plenty of CEO's of huge companies who are black men.

So it makes you wonder where Jesse and Al now stand? I guess they could harp on how the court systems are unfair to blacks and that there are more blacks in jail than whites. But the fact that most people manage to stay out of jail because they have high-priced attorneys is the key here, not the color of your skin (it worked for O.J., and last time I looked, he was black).

What's sad is that Jesse and Al avoid the main problem that affects the black community, the fact that many fathers abandon their families when their children are young. That is the bigger problem here, since that affects the guidance a child receives growing up (and leads to gang activity) and it also affects the financial situation (preventing children from attending college).

But there's nobody to blame but yourself in those cases, and that doesn't make Jesse and Al much money, so it's not good for their business to bring that up. Good thing Bill Cosby is around to do that.

I don't know about all of you, but I'm having a hard time figuring out who I'm going to vote for in November, as none of the candidates really excite me. None represent the majority of ideas I have, and all have seriously flawed policies on a myriad of things.

But after listening to what Barack Obama said Tuesday in regards to the inflammatory remarks made by his pastor, Jeremiah White, I can safely eliminate him as a choice.

It's not that I think he's naive when it comes to his Iraq policy, or that he has no interest in addressing the immigration issue, or that most of what he "stands" for is change for the sake of change. But what he didn't say Tuesday is bothersome.

Here is a passage from a sermon given by White regarding how blacks in America have been treated:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Here is one excerpt of what Jeremiah Wright has stated about 9/11:

“White America got their wake-up call after 9-11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

Obama chose not to disavow or denounce Wright, his pastor and mentor for over 20 years. He will not distance himself from a man who feels that US deserved to get hit by terrorists on 9/11. And Obama didn't really put a lot of distance between himself and Louis Farrakahn, a racist, anti-Jewish person who does nothing but harm tot his country when Farrakhan endorsed him.

I didn't like how Obama made excuses for White, saying that his words are often out of frustration and a feeling of disenfranchisement shared by many American blacks. Honestly, I don't understand how an educated black person in this country can still play the "victim" card anymore. Don't you think that Martin Luther King, Jr. would be thrilled to know how close we are to electing a black president? Don't you think he would be happy to know that a black man is a Supreme Court Justice, and that a black woman is the Secretary of State? And if you think about all of the blacks who own their own homes and businesses forty years after he was assassinated, I think King would appreciate the strides that have been taken in this country.

So when Barack is talking about victims of what he implied was white majority who has kept everyone down, I think he has missed the point. The problem with blacks today isn't about being kept down by "the man" as Obama, and many other Democrats would like you to believe, it's about the lack of father figures in many black families. It's about children born out of wedlock. You can't blame whitey for that.

I'm not telling you to not vote for Obama based on what he said, nor should anyone vote for him simply because he's black. And you shouldn't vote for John McCain simply because he's not a Democrat or for Hillary because she's a woman. But I think Obama, but not saying what he should have, hurt his chances to garner the votes of white people Tuesday.
At least he did with this white person. I'm very nervous voting for a guy who won't distance himself from anti-Semitic, American-hating people who only spread ugliness through their words.

There's plenty of discussion on this site about who you want to vote for. But is there anyone whom you would not, under any circumstances, vote for?

Weigh in here.