An interview so good, it deserved pre-release spin

This is the problem I have with the Reverend Wright controversy. It’s completely being spun by the media. If you ever see a 20- or 30-second clip, you should already know someone is presenting one side of an issue. It’s interesting how John McCain skates accepting the endorsement of John Hagee who flat-out, in-context said Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for New Orleans planning a gay pride parade and a complete circus be made of the comments of Barack Obama’s pastor.

I understand why it’s not compared to Reverend Wright’s comments like “America’s chickens have come home to roost” and “not God bless America, God damn America“, because when put into full context they aren’t nearly as damning. Now I’m not a believer really, but I was raised on faith. I have a lot of respect for faith and religion, but I don’t make my decisions based on a translation of a translation of a 2,000+ year old collection of scriptures. That is not to disrespect the bible, only to offer why it’s not the how-to book I consult for everyday issues.

The media is ridiculously biased, and even with the 24-hour news cycle we are still stuck with Sean Hannity on skip for 3 weeks about Reverend Wright while the economy falls into recession and we reach the sad milestone of 4,000 American servicemen lost in Iraq & Afghanistan. It was interesting to see all of the pre-spin done for this interview on PBS, of all places. PBS has been speaking the truth when corporate henchmen can’t afford to say a word.  They also opened up on the New York Times article I discussed here earlier about planted propaganda puppets in the mainstream media.  All of the pre-release spin did for me was make me want to double-check to make sure my TiVo had me covered.

My hope is that people will watch this interview and make their own judgement, but publicly calling a man an anti-American hate monger is hard to back up when it is blatantly false. This isn’t even simply the far-left blogosphere coming to the rescue of Reverend Wright. Father Michael Pflegler was criticized by Fox News (after having previously contributed for them) for daring to come to the defense of Wright. Former minister and Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee has also publicly defended the pastor. It’s too much to think these otherwise respectable people have “turned”. The more plausible reality is that we may be being sold a lie. Jeremiah Wright is a former Marine and Navy corpsman who has served his community in ways most reading this have never approached.

Regarding the pre-release spin coverage seen on Fox News and CNN (among others, I’m sure), none of it even came close to approaching the general theme and course the actual interview took. If you only caught the pundits on Thursday evening or early Friday you might have gotten the impression he only went on TV to defend himself, against the wishes of the Obama campaign. You may have even gotten the impression Reverend Wright took shots at Senator Obama for his response to the issue, saying “he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician”. Barack Obama knows Reverend Wright far better than any talking head in the media, save for maybe Moyers, who showed a picture of both of them in earlier years, standing over President Johnson’s hospital bed. The Obama campaign didn’t urge Rev. Wright not to be interviewed until after the election. If anything he was told to go tell more of the truth. It’s obvious, without a full interview with a member of the press, he’ll only be heard through 20-seconds looped ad nauseam.

I highly recommend everyone watch the interview, I’ll link it here as soon as it’s posted. It is of special import if you have been exposed and influenced by the constant coverage of these comments. His personal recollection of the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 is particularly interesting, recalling Psalm 137 and warning we must not respond out of sheer revenge. The entire sermon was actually very poignant in saying we must first look to ourselves, and make sure we are righteous before we move into parts of the world and ask them to be righteous.

UPDATE: Here is the entire interview, in 4 parts. Thanks to RealClearPolitics.com for getting it on YouTube.

McCain couldn’t even begin to understand poverty

John McCain is on another speaking tour, this time talking about poverty. The It’s Time for Action tour, at least one major news outlet likens this tour to President Bush’s ‘compassionate, conservative campaign’. We now know what a sham that was. It’s not to say that he doesn’t have a few good ideas, it’s that he wants to talk about something he doesn’t – and couldn’t possibly – understand. This further calls into question one of the traditional roles of the First Lady, if he brings his heiress wife into that role. Their hearts may very well be in the right place, but every policy plan McCain rolls out reeks of true legislative elitism. Here is a snippet from the Think Progress story about his economic policy:

The Center for American Progress has the breakdown and analysis of Senator McCain’s economic plan and its impact on the poor. To say he’d be further forgetting these parts of America is an understatement. He’s spent the past year shattering every rational person’s view of him as an unabashed maverick and turned him into a true pandering Republican party loyalist. Partisanship is not what the American people need. Hollow claims of helping the poor is not what the American people need.

$8 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year yields $16,640 before taxes. If you don’t think there are single parents out there unable to find a better job, making this much stretch for two or more people. It happens. If you don’t know many people actually living on this much, you’d think it were impossible. You might even believe people who lived on this much did so by choice, or by some guilt of their own. It’s just not always a black-and-white issue.

A lot of the response I hear to things like this are that people are unmotivated, addicted, or otherwise prone to poverty. What I don’t hear is any honesty about the advantages given to those enabled to speak on the issue. I rarely hear people working face-to-face with people in poverty, telling them the low-down on why they are poor and will remain poor. I rarely have someone on the ‘front lines’ of this issue willing to dismiss the struggles of the suffering.

Senator McCain is highly capable and has spoken the truth on many occasions in the past.  He is still living up to that legacy in many respects.  He recently criticized the response to Hurricane Katrina, going so far as to point the finger at President Bush.

Asked at an outdoor news conference if he traced the failure of leadership straight to the top, Mr. McCain, who has vowed to campaign with President Bush, said, emphatically, “yes.”

John McCain can observe a problem and shed light on issues to more people, but as far as understanding this issue, he’s just never been poor or even close.   Many who have never experienced poverty have done great things to improve the quality of life for others less fortunate, and I have no doubt a McCain presidency may yield some benefits for those in poverty.  To offer welfare with no teeth is as cruel as offering nothing at all.  

The problem with poverty is that if you live in poverty, it’s all you see.  If you never live it, you’ll never see.  The subject itself breeds a discontent that makes the entire issue hard to discuss, but it must be done.  It must be done with people who live the experience.  Go ask a grandmother in the poorest neighborhood of your city what happened to her neighborhood.  Ask a worker who was laid off and saw his wife leave, taking the kids, why he might be more open to criminal activity.  This is not to justify behavior, it is simply to understand the problem.  

_________________________

A day’s work is a day’s work, neither more nor less, and the man who does it needs a day’s sustenance, a night’s repose and due leisure, whether he be painter or ploughman. – George Bernard Shaw

Still with Stupid? Why we need a smart President by Meghan Daum

With political discourse reduced to screaming contests and actual news eclipsed by exclusive and shocking footage of celebrities without makeup, we’ve become not only impatient with but downright opposed to the kinds of ideas that can’t be reduced to a line on a screen crawl or a two-sentence blog entry. Have you fallen into this trap?

I like this line of thought, and agree Barack Obama is most likely to know the price of a can of tuna. He and Michelle are actually most likely of all the candidates and spouses. Senator McCain and Senator Clinton are the kettle and pot calling a spoon black, in this case. The LA Times has been increasingly interesting and off the beaten (to death) path of most mainstream media. This column is well worth the read.

Yes, Obama’s richer than most ordinary people, but in that pantheon, he’s the guy most likely to know how much a can of tuna costs. As for his branding as an elite or an intellectual, why the jeers? Shouldn’t they all fit that bill? “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart summed it up best: “Not only do I want an elite president,” he said this week, “I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me.”

read more | digg story

Newsweek: Adios, Sound Bites & Fat Cats – Obama is Changing Politics

The ecosystem of political media has changed, with sound bites losing their authority. Consumers of news are less easily manipulated by the 24/7 barrage of bites and images (Hillary Clinton doing whisky shots, Obama bowling), which are dissected endlessly on cable. Voters search for their own context.

read more | digg story

This week, Newsweek political columnist Jonathan Alter says nothing people on Digg and other social news communities, as well as many passive users of YouTube didn’t know for a long time. It’s just really nice to see it from Newsweek, something read by many outside of these communities. The volume of Senator Barack Obama‘s online contributions is staggering ($40m in March), and at a low average donation (around $100).

The column discusses how Obama and company intentionally rid his speech on race in Philadelphia, known as ‘A More Perfect Union‘ on YouTube, of sound bytes and short snippets of specific response. Obama planned to paint a bigger picture, about how this country must look beyond petty attacks and sharp wit toward others. Alter noticed that the place where people can get this information, since it is impossible to find on cable news, is the internet. Instead of speaking to the media, Obama spoke directly to the people.

Alter ends with a rather pessimistic view of just how he views the ability of Washington to actually change and serve the people, rather than special interests. Some political action groups and special interest groups have produced positive results in the past, but the nature of modern technology has quickly made the collection in such a manner effective or necessary for the people. The internet allows people to endorse a candidate. I always thought a candidate should issue a campaign fundraiser where they ask anyone and everyone, everywhere to send one dollar and nothing more. Just one dollar to the campaign. Not so much to fund it directly, but to show just how many people will also take some time out of their day to show support this November. One dollar : one vote.

The important fact isn’t that my idea hasn’t been used, it is that things like this can actually happen today. The modern teenager has communicated with people in more countries than their parents. Over 1.3 million individuals have donated to the Obama campaign. We can’t allow that to be the only change that occurs, more voices must be heard in the White House. Every voice must be weighed when important decisions are being made. Everyone won’t get their way, but no one will be ignored.

McCain: Cutting taxes more important than balanced budget

Republican John McCain said Sunday that cutting taxes and stimulating the economy are more important than balancing the budget, and accused both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama of supporting tax hikes that would worsen the impact of a recession.

read more | digg story

Senator McCain thinks he’s going to reverse our $3 trillion deficit by cutting wasteful spending. That’s great, Mr. McCain, but after that $18 billion, what then? We’re 0.6% better-off. The “wasteful spending” he should target is the $500 billion/year war festering a cauldron of anti-American sentiment and making orphans out of Iraqi children. We can’t afford McBush, John McCain is a far better human being and more worthy than Bush to lead the free world, but that was in 2000.

Today he is too out of touch to be effective, associates far too often with Bush administration cronies and knows absolutely nothing about the biggest issue this election cycle: the economy. Sure, he can get advisers who understand the economy, but without some independent understanding he won’t even know who to pick as advisers. That’s a dangerous situation given what has happened to this country as a result of the neo-conservative hijacking of the Republican Party in the last 7 years.

I also noticed on CNN and MSNBC today he’s reportedly aiming for energy independence within 5 years. This is an admirable goal. I just keep thinking “who’s the one spouting empty rhetoric again?” It seems to me that because Senator McCain has been in Washington for a quarter century, he gets a free pass. Anything he proposes is assume to be a good enough idea and above careful scrutiny. A major goal for energy independence should be in 5 years, but to say a candidate can eliminate reliance on foreign oil in that short time almost reeks of corporate greed over the last 8 years.

If this is/were possible, we basically fought a war on a lie, helped our enemy gain footing in a new part of the world. Our true enemy had never been allowed or accepted within Iraq (and isn’t in Iran, for that matter). We’ve stayed 5 years, as long as McCain thinks it would take to gain energy independence. Over that time, only oil companies and corporate executives have benefited from any Bush administration policy.

As this administration destroyed the economy, it sends us $600 checks to make us feel like we’re not being ignored and our rights trampled. As this administration has needlessly put our servicemen in harm’s way, we’ve only heard fear mongering from the White House and most of the news media. As schools have become re-segregated, this administration has standardized tests, so that those with the fewest opportunities and resources are graded on the same scale as those in $100 million high schools.

This article also brings up William Ayers, 1960s-era (as in, when Obama was under age 10) radical who admitted to setting bombs. They were the most extreme part of the anti-war movement, and truly detracted from many of the ideas they tried to uphold. The interesting thing about this, however, is that this man is an English professor. He’s not in jail. I know some Americans read this and think, well WHY NOT? That is a perfectly natural reaction, but the simple fact is that he has not been convicted of a crime in a court of law. Why should Obama be guilty by association? He points out, when asked about Ayers, that he was 8 years old at the time. I believe he was living in Indonesia or Hawaii, far away from Ayers and the Weather Underground.

I’m no TV Guide, but any show with Sean Hannity will discuss this for the next 6 months. I’m also no psychic, but he’ll probably never mention McCain’s wife stealing drugs from her non-profit organizations, his absolute ignorance of economic issues and his utter confusion concerning our enemy. He thinks the way to fix our tax code is to build another, optional system and have it run alongside the current system. That will sure save money for our economy, bloat the government and tax code even more. Vote for a better economy and a safer America, pass on John McCain.

Kevin Ferris doesn’t understand King 40 years later, let alone Obama in the now

I read a high school drama production-turned-editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning and stood aghast. Kevin Ferris truly doesn’t get it. He isn’t the story. He is a guy on the sidelines. He’s not a guy on the sidelines with a helmet, ready to go in and win the game if the true star is injured. He’s the guy watching a cable, making sure it doesn’t get snagged or tripped over as the TV camera rolls back and forth along a track.

To still be calling Barack Obama an elitist is to will ignorance stronger than any truth. A definition:

Elitism – The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
-from Dictionary.com

This doesn’t even pass the slap test. Does this describe Obama after all of the personally revealing speeches and candid responses to the media’s witch hunts? I’d say does a far better job explaining the current administration, Halliburton, KBR, no-bid contracts, deregulation and sub-prime mortgages. Having grown up in Kansas even in the 80s I can tell you first-hand, there was still major stigma about the white woman with the black child. It’s not like his mom’s struggles remove any possibility for elitism, but it’s not like those calling him an elitist care about the story that makes this man. Elitists aren’t found helping families get back on their feet after a plant closes on the south side of Chicago. Elitists aren’t passing ethics or death penalty reform, they’re deregulating our banking system and authorizing an unjust war.

You see, there’s two sides to every Schwartz

…but you don’t see.

It’s not good and evil. It’s not even black and white and gray area. There are millions of colors in every spectrum. We tend to fixate on two-sided things. Where they don’t exist, we create two sides and divide ourselves based on a line. A line we’ve created, dividing two seemingly distinct groups. It reminds me of this. Are we really that simple?

• Ask pro-lifers to tell a mother she’ll just have to die, the baby’s life is more important.

• Ask pro-choicers if abortion at 8 months is OK for everyone in every situation.

• Ask anti-war people if they hate the troops.

• Ask proponents of the current war if they believe they are doing evil.

You’ll find a spectrum. Everything gets dumbed down: red or blue, black or white, life or choice, freedom or protection. Good or evil, even. Sometimes even two lone letters: D R (Circle ONE)

It is not so simple. It is. But it’s not.

If we can begin to see this spectrum – on every issue – we will stop witnessing war as a solution, mass apathy, rampant cronyism and lies sold as truth.

• To people of faith- are prayers answered yes or no?

• To the science community- are theories always proven, absolutely?

• Do you monitor and adjust?

• Do you rise to the occasion?

• Do you adapt and overcome?

These are proof you understand that life is not getting from Point A to Point B, it is not black and white, it is not night and day – it is a spectrum of millions of small choices made by people, every second of every day.

It’s no coincidence our best work as human beings comes from our notion of the world we know being shattered by something so true it is inescapable. We must find an answer. It drives science, medicine, technology and life.

If we truly want to solve tough problems, we can’t believe there are two sides to anything. We must always look forward, realizing we’ve put away some of the problems of America’s past, shied away from some problems and muddled the rhetoric on issues that affect Americans on a day-to-day basis. The truth is necessary, and for this we must question things. Not syntax and semantics, but fact and fiction. Spin and truth.

Even arguing for people to vote sometimes becomes polarized. To me it looks this way: nobody is asking you not to watch American Idol, shop ’til you drop, have the world’s largest collection of whatever or do anything you choose with your life. Just as temporary obsessions don’t keep us from eating, they shouldn’t keep us from doing our civic duties. Give a little time to the forces that change your life; edit the Wikipedia page of America, if you will.

We must always ask ‘why?’ before we do anything. It’s sad that we don’t listen to children more often.

To some, this will all sound childish and idealistic. I agree, it is childish and idealistic. But children never start wars. Children don’t (often, at least) steal everything from everyone else out of sheer greed. Children wouldn’t hesitate to help everyone equally. Children are little idealists until they reach our adult world. And again, call it childish. You are, in fact, an adult for saying that. Right?

_____________________________

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.

– Mohandas Gandhi

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

– Henry David Thoreau

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

– Abraham Lincoln

When the government violates the people’s rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.

– Marquis de Lafayette

Pygmies for Obama

I support Senator Obama at this point in the election.

When I was sixteen my friends and I stole a pygmy goat from a farm on the outside of town. We put it in someones bed, as a wakeup call.

Now Senator Obama owes everyone an apology for what I’ve done. Modern politics are fun!

Isn’t this the EXACT opposite of interviews with the current President?

AP Chairman Dean Singleton makes the ultimate faux pas of late, confusing a political candidate with a known enemy of the United States. Much the same as when former Attorney General John Ashcroft made a similar slip, Singleton immediately seemed to understand his mistake. It was nothing more than a slip of the tongue, with absolutely nothing else to read into it, but there is much more offered to this country in this short clip. Barack Obama’s reaction to an arguably offensive slip was so graceful it truly gives one believe that a sea-change is imminent.

I am coming to a good comfort level with all three candidates. After I said to myself in 2000, “I’ll vote for McCain for sure if he runs for President again”; after I’ve been an avid reader of anything associated with the Clintons – positive or negative – my entire adult life; after I’ve witnessed a truly historic figure rise to prominence in the way that Dr. King took the helm of the SCLC at the age of 26, I just want my country to move in a new direction. To once again be the leaders of the free world, where progress is born. I want this nation to be a true beacon of prosperity for the future, not simply what those stuck in the twentieth century would like to emulate. Is America truly in the 21st century?

Everything in moderation, here I stand

One of the biggest gripes I have with the climate of modern politics is that the moment you reveal one position on one issue, you are labeled. You can either be a flag waving, gun toting, Bible thumping, English-only speaking conservative or a soy burger eating, latte drinking, secular, high society liberal. It seems like nobody ever recognizes that everyone as wildly differing views, and don’t fit so nicely in those categories we’re given.

John Adams, one of my political heroes, essentially lost his second term for not being partisan enough. He refused to line up before the issue was at hand. I believe in much the same. I also believe it is possible to get America and Congress specifically to where very few things remain on the docket. It may sound idealistic or even absurd, but I believe that is what the Founding Fathers intended by the phrase ‘to form a more perfect Union’ in the Preamble to the Constitution. I wanted to write out just what my positions are on specific issues. This is based on the organization of issues at glassbooth.org with some variations.

______________________________________

On Abortion and Birth Control

• I support a woman’s right to choose because they are always the most informed on the situation and the realities of a child being brought into the world and their own health concerns. I would also urge the federal government to leave this issue to the states, this is an example of the power of federalism.

• I support emergency contraception because it is simple, early, safer and to be blunt the earth has a population problem. The United States doesn’t feel that problem, but it exists.

• I support abstinence and sex education, with an emphasis on sexually-transmitted diseases. Children tend to do the opposite of what you tell them. Don’t just tell them not to, tell them why not and how to be safe if they disobey. It’s called mitigation, much more effective than the all-or-nothing policy of abstinence-only education.

On Civil Liberties

• I support extending habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees, knowing the crimes of the accused will not harm national security.

• I oppose waterboarding and any form of physical or psychological torture, first on the grounds that the counter-terrorism community believes it is ineffective in retrieving actionable intelligence. Especially in a ticking-time-bomb scenario, we need something that produces results. Torture simply undermines democracy.

On Crime and Punishment

• I support the death penalty as a matter of federal concern, again I believe individual states should decide.

• I support a drastic rethinking of the drug war, marijuana scheduling and decriminalization. Non-violent drug offenders should not end up in prison, rehab maybe.

• I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing, instead I support the implementation of Initiative, Referendum and Recall in every state so that judges may be recalled if they do something against the interests of the public. The criticisms of this system are the same as when it began here in Arizona in 1912. That should tell you something, and as a resident, it works. Propositions brought up by the people allow us to offer legislation, which is especially useful in areas where politicians may fear backlash for proposing or voting for divisive legislation.

On Education

• I support the elimination of the Department of Education thereby eliminating the No Child Left Behind Act, electing to trust the states to use their own existing education departments to compete with each other.

• I oppose funding schools based on property tax in the area, this is de facto segregation an serves to create socio-economically segregated schools. With all funding coming from the state level, all schools within a district should receive the same amount per pupil and districts with more schools should be given bonuses. This would discourage branching-off to favor one or a smaller group of schools. There is a school within 5 miles of University of Phoenix Stadium where the Arizona Cardinals play that doesn’t have maps in its social studies classrooms.

• I strongly support across-the-board raises for schoolteachers, progressively based on level (elementary, middle, secondary). There is absolutely no reason teachers shouldn’t be able to afford to live in whatever neighborhood they are teaching in, on their own salary. Teachers across this country are many of the ones facing losing their homes due to predatory lending and yes, false optimism on the teacher’s part.

• I oppose standardized tests at the national level. States should be free to do as they please in this regard, but I ask this question: are the tests in the poor schools the same as the ones in the wealthy schools? It’s interesting we put them on the same scale, but not in the same building.

• I oppose vouchers for education. The biggest problem with vouchers is the disparity in cost between your average private school and the amount these vouchers would grant. In Arizona, private schools’ tuition averages about $6,000-9,000 per year. Schools are only paid on average just shy of $4000 per student, per year. Anyone with another few grand can easier afford to send their children to nice schools, but poor families who have no way to pay or transport their children are out of luck.

• I oppose merit-based pay. There is no fair way of brokering this system. Teachers who inherit stronger students (affluent areas with less crime, strong feeder schools) are at an advantage. This would only serve to discourage any teacher from looking to work in areas in highest need of teachers.

• I support a period of mandatory public service for youth. When you feel like you own the house, you take better care. It’s the same with a nation, everyone should take part in building it and making it better.

On Environment and Energy

• I support taking action to reduce the impact of Americans on the environment. Preliminary debate should be aimed at collecting the issues which establish consensus, such as gaining energy independence. Not only would renewable energy sources stabilize our economy and create jobs, but also reduce fossil fuel dependence (if not emissions).

• I support pushing for international consensus points on the issue of environmental friendliness. Begin with broad and basic examples, and work with the international community on a truly global problem.

• I support a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, where businesses may purchase carbon credits to offset emissions. It would really do nothing but push money in different directions, but it would reward those who are best on the environment. In my eyes these are well aligned incentives.

• I support the pursuit of nuclear energy. We’ve got to get past stigma and phobias to realize, cleaner is better than dirty and dependent. We should always be working toward the best, most efficient and cleanest energy sources available. The problem is becoming complacent.

• I strongly support a drastic effort to improve public transit, not only within urban centers but also interstate. There is no reason we cannot have bullet trains and an alternative to the airlines, one that doesn’t take days to reach a destination or confine us on a small bus with odd people.

• I support increased fuel standards for automobiles in the United States. If only to make sure the domestic auto companies can compete, because in reality we’re getting killed in the auto market. It isn’t really even wise to buy an American car if you truly want to make the best purchase for your own self-interest.

On Gay Rights

• I support civil unions for gay couples. I wouldn’t oppose gay marriage in any way, I just know this issue is the kind of thing that will require baby steps to overcome the hypocrisy in any “separate but equal” government stance.

• I support extending spousal benefits to same-sex couples, to strengthen those families. They are, in fact, families. They shouldn’t worry about custody or inheritance if one dies simply because they aren’t a traditional couple.
  

On Gun Control

• I support background checks for the purchase of firearms. This is just a matter of conscience. Our government keeps better tabs on people buying fertilizer than guns. I don’t think it should go any further, but making sure people aren’t violent criminals isn’t too much to ask.

• I oppose a ban on assault rifles. “When guns are outlawed, outlaws will brandish cologne.” Did I get that right? No, that was Dave Barry, but I do think that if we outlaw assault rifles then the only people who will have them will be true violent criminals.

On Health Care

• I support a universal system of health care. I believe that modern technology and government transparency will make this system work. The exact same people will be doing the diagnosis, treatment and surgical procedures so I don’t understand why people think the service would crumble. The truth is, you can go to Canada, you can ask a Canadian. They will tell you, their system works and people are happier and healthier. This would have collateral effects far beyond just health care.

• I believe the government involvement in health care would help to bring costs down, because the pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be able to swarm such a large group at once.

On Immigration

• I support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants existing this country. The process of deportation would be lengthy and expensive.

• I support deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony. With some exceptions, such as known gang members with a history of deportation and re-entry.

• I oppose a physical fence along the US-Mexico border. Barriers don’t keep people out, they keep you in. Whether you realize it or not, this kind of thing will make us no safer but will speak volumes to the rest of the world and future generations. A border fence would only bolster the human smuggling trade and send business into a dangerous criminal cartel.

• I oppose making English the official language in the United States. This is frivolous and sort-of xenophobic, and would only create problems getting care or court services. We should instead be mandating all American school children learn two or even three languages throughout their school years, beginning in elementary school.

On Iraq and Foreign Policy

• I support beginning withdrawal of troops from the war in Iraq and a shift in focus to Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden.

• I support the President urging China to cease selling weapons to those committing genocide in Sudan and urge Hu Jintao to meet with the Dalai Lama.
  

• I support a lifelong commitment to the health and mental well-being of anyone who enlists in the military.

• I support a foreign policy of tackling all issues diplomatically. I’m tired of presidents who think 4,000 dead American servicemen is better than even trying to a conversation with an adversary.

• I support multi-lateralism in every major global action, through the United Nations or NATO.

• I support using foreign aid to combat poverty and disease, and to provide business opportunity through microcredit loans.

• I support ending the trade embargo with Cuba and beginning a new era of relations with our neighbor ninety miles from Florida.

On Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy

• I support doctors making marijuana available for medical use. Many medical professionals would put their years of education and professional reputation on the line for something that millions of Americans believe should be legal for medical purposes.
  

• I oppose federal raids on sick or dying patients prescribed medical marijuana, and their health care providers. This is cowardice and going after the lowest man on the totem pole.
  

• I oppose the wasteful War on Drugs. The money only creates a giant bureaucracy and a court and prison system flooded with non-violent drug offenders, costing the taxpayers billions.

• I support the rescheduling of marijuana, from Schedule I to Schedule III on the federal drug scheduling system. Compare for yourself.

Schedule I

• The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
• The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
• There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples: Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, MDMA (Ecstasy), methaqualone (Quaalude)

Schedule III

• The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
• The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
• Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Examples: Anabolic steroids, ketamine (Special K), synthetic THC (Marinol)

On Social Security

• I support privatizing social security. While simply stopping the highway robbery of the social security trust fund would probably right the ship, privatizing is more American. To be honest, nearly everything needs competition. Everything that isn’t a matter of true government concern. I think the government is more responsible for promoting a healthy population than for giving them peanuts by garnishing their grandchildren’s paychecks during retirement, but that’s me.

• I oppose raising the earnings cap on social security. The more you make, the less you need social security for retirement.

On Taxes and Budget

• I support the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service in favor of a Fair Tax system, which generates the same revenues by taxing consumption rather than income. The dumbest thing America does is tax the one thing it needs every able-bodied American to do, work. We don’t tax rampant consumption aside from marginal sales taxes, which often create negative externalities which tax dollars must address. Under the Fair Tax, you can make as much money as you want with no increase in tax due to income. Read more about the Fair Tax.

• I support an amendment requiring Congress and the President to balance the federal budget every year.

On Trade and Economics

• I support free trade with few restrictions. Trade can be the most powerful vehicle for positive change in the world, we must always prepare for creative destruction.

• I oppose any increase in the federal minimum wage. This generally only leads to more inflation with little actual benefit in the long run. In the short run hours are usually cut, so the benefit is moot.

• I support many government subsidies for farmers, however I believe fruits and vegetables are disgustingly underrepresented(around 3% of overall subsidies). This relates to illegal immigration as well, because if we subsidized fruits and vegetables more we might be able to attract American workers to pick strawberries in California or lettuce in Arizona. Just a thought.

• I support normal trade and diplomatic relations with China. Our President should, however, continually be urging Hu Jintao to meet with the Dalai Lama and make visible strides in the area of human rights.

_____________________________________________

Let me know if there’s anything I should add to this list, and feel free to discuss my stances. You don’t need to waste your time just to attack, but reasoned debate is very welcome.

The election storyline America doesn’t want to tell

A lot of hype and excitement is surrounding this historic election, and the potential for the first woman or first black man being elected president.

What isn’t told is the potential for this storyline: America returns to rich, old white man and balks at the notion of making history. America is given two choices that say much more than any single presidency in the history of this country but chooses to return to the familiar. No matter how you try to spin this outcome, it will appear to many Americans, and the rest of the world that we haven’t changed or learned a thing.

Forty years after Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed we still have surprising work to do in the way of civil and worker’s rights. Before Dr. King was assassinated he was set to begin working for jobs and worker’s rights. He delivered his famous ‘I have a dream’ speech at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. After years working for freedom, he was preparing to work more for jobs and gaining economic independence. Much of that work is yet to be done.

What would speak volumes to the effectiveness of the March…for Jobs and Freedom, would be for the American people this November to give the most important job in the land to Barack Obama, or even Hillary Clinton. In many ways the histories of the civil rights and women’s rights movements have been intertwined. Less than half a century after de facto freedom was earned in this country, a black man could be given the most powerful job in the world. As a lifelong student of history, as well as someone who has heard “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it” ad nauseam, I believe this opportunity must be seized.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are great candidates who would do a lot within the first 100 days. Neither would destroy the fabric of our nation, or even approach the kind of damage done to our Constitution by the Bush administration. Both would help average Americans who want only to work and send their kids to college and be left alone. Neither would threaten or challenge the rights of responsible gun owners or sportsmen. Most importantly, both would initiate the withdrawal process from Iraq.

Doing this alone would spur our economy, rejuvenate our troops looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and improve American favor around the world. I can get behind that.

McCain committed to Iraq, not terrorism- and other silly gaffes

Something I probably say less on this blog and more in daily conversation is that I truly do like John McCain as a theoretical presidential candidate, a senator and as a human being. In 2000 I told a lot of people if he ever ran again he’d have my vote, but I really had to rethink that as the race shaped up. I just cannot look at this election and think there’s any way he’s the best choice. Gaffes like this one exposed recently by the Army Times, are just too much for me to believe this man is capable of holding the highest office in the land. He would really be ideal as a VP choice had one of the other Republicans won the nomination.

It’s just ridiculous that he would be that confused as a military man. He wouldn’t own up to the decision to shift our focus to the person we know to be directly responsible for 9/11. As president, he should be able to make those decisions, or at the very least know who to defer to – now who is this Commander-in-Chief, guy?

Gaffes include-

• repeatedly confusing al-Qaida in Iraq with Shias and associated with Iran.

• not remembering his own stance on using tax money for contraception.

• calling medical marijuana a state’s right, later saying he supports federal raids on the seriously ill.

• trying to woo the black vote in South Philly.

• saying he’ll cut deficits like Reagan, when Reagan tripled our deficit.

• the confusion over General Petraeus’ battlefield, mentioned above.

• voting against the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, it was 1983 but that’s hardly an excuse.

• rightly speaking out against the bias toward the wealthy in the Bush tax cuts, then flip-flopping completely on the issue.

• making a tasteless joke about the daughter of one of his opponents, and another about bombing civilians.

• offering a tax plan that costs $2 trillion. $2,000,000,000,000.

• finally, I consider it a gaffe to make a decision only women should make.

As a former debater, I’d love for someone to go line-by-line with that and make sense of it all. The more I warm back up to Senator McCain, the better my overall mood for the election. I would only ask that you cite sources and explain reasoning. This is my biggest issue with Senator McCain and his approach to the presidency:

Going silent on non-issues, earmark moratorium tells a better story

I’ve decided to only allow myself 24-hours to react to what the modern media calls “news”. This includes the syntax and semantics arguments, surrogate attacks and guilty-by-association campaigns. I’ve already over-covered the Obama “bitter” remarks, as has most of the news. We push out stories of the struggling economy, the global (a word you’d think meant ‘unamerican’) food crisis, the endless war in Iraq and actual legitimate issue debate for this kind of crap. For my own sanity and health, I’ve got to stop caring so much about what people think about what people say. Does that make sense?

Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post has a short but great piece with two videos as Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama address the same crowd on Obama’s remarks about rural America. The response was telling: people don’t care about that crap. We don’t need the candidates to run a popularity contest just because the mainstream media wants to make this election into one.

The more I look into each of the candidates, the more I realize they are all a giant leap forward from the current administration. My remaining concerns are economic, and I see no great option here. McCain’s choices for supporting cast will be a major tell, although a preliminary look tells me there are far too many Bush administration cronies in the bunch. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney had a far greater economic bearing. Then I remind myself that unless it is working to get your friends no-bid contracts, a VP really has no major role in shaping economic policy.

This earmark moratorium introduced by Jim DeMint of South Carolina would have been a great win for the taxpayer. The names of four co-sponsors names caught my eye. Jon Kyl is among the most fiscally responsible in the Senate, and someone I trust highly with my tax dollar. John McCain, Kyl’s colleague from Arizona is also a co-sponsor, as well as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The moratorium would ban any earmarks in legislation for the 2009 fiscal year.

Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.

The problem with earmarks, he said, is that “we don’t know if [the projects] are valuable or not.” CNN

In rare occasions the earmarks are for semi-worthy job-creating projects. Most are not so worthy. This moratorium failed 29-71. We really do need a sea change in Washington.

All three candidates are more for the people than the Bush administration, which is a high priority for me. The strength of this country is our freedom to disagree, not just as individuals but on a state-by-state and city-by-city basis. It’s the basic idea of federalism. Those in California and those in Oklahoma should not have the same exact laws. That’s why our federal government should always remain very small. If my loud noise bothers my neighbor, my city can pass an ordinance. We don’t need a Constitutional amendment preventing loud noises everywhere.

The Compassion Forum – Democrats steal a Republican show

This format seems somewhat awkward, especially for Democrats. It is a positive and welcome change, but an odd thing nonetheless. You get the sense that the two sides are coming together for a more effective debate on the real issues that face us all. The location is Messiah College in Grantham, PA.

________________

Hillary Clinton got off to a slow start stumbling through words to piece sentences together as she dodged specific questions to say that her faith is not one example or about her. I agree to some extent, but in the frame of reference of a politician in a ‘Compassion Forum’ she’s dodging the questions. It’s not until she’s asked a question by a religious leader and not Campbell Brown, far from the toughest interviewer around.

The line of thought for her decision making process in the White House was definitely a strong argument. She denounces the defensive and abrupt process that has met critics of presidential policy in the past. There was no real accusation there, but clearly it was the Bush administration to which she was referring. This is a very strong position to have, but one I believe both Democratic candidates have this attitude.

The “potential for life begins at conception”? What a nice way out so that she can speak and pander to both sides? I do agree that she’s worked most of her life to reducing the number of abortions women have, but it comes down to education. Another question dodged, but a real history and body of work if you are pro-choice but agree we should work to reduce the number of abortions in our country. That should be something we can all get behind.

Senator Clinton took a great opportunity to talk about the issues facing women in Africa and other parts of the world in regards to birth control, forced sterilization and genital manipulation. Throughout my political science education I’ve read a lot on this topic, something that can horrify to no end. It doesn’t get much airplay, and quite frankly it’s a difficult discussion to have but it is great to see Hillary championing women’s rights as human rights around the world.

The assisted suicide question seemed out of left-field, but Hillary reminded us that the Terry Schaivo case divided America a few years ago. This forum must be a serious challenge for Hillary, she sounds robotic and over-thought for sure. It’s difficult to watch when she is uncomfortable or thinking on the fly. I’d definitely concur that the entire issue of assisted suicide is not at the ready in my mind, and I’m sure it’s not a top talking point for Senator Clinton.

After the break the Senator responds to questions from the audience. Her first question deals with her awareness of the separation of church and state but she agrees that this forum is useful for the topic. Comparing her question to the religious separation question to Barack Obama’s answer, I can’t help but feel her answer was incomplete. She never really addressed exactly how she felt about it, not in a “how would it/wouldn’t it affect policy?” way, but a “what is your personal philosophy?” way. It shouldn’t become a big issue, but he gets the win on this issue for sure.

The next question from the audience deals with Tibet and China, and on this subject Hillary Clinton is taking an idealist viewpoint I can only admire. I truly want to stand up to China as a nation, but I’m pragmatic enough to know that this would have ramifications far worse than anything we’ve seen in global threats since the height of the Cold War. She urges President Bush to boycott the Olympics, which I’ve already discussed and disagree with as a matter of protest. It would ultimately be counter-productive in terms of actually getting anything accomplished with China in the future. The fact that Clinton urged the boycott could hurt her chances in dealing with China if she were to become President.

A question about proliferation of low-cost drugs and generic drug proliferation to people in need who have no resources to pay for expensive medicine gives Sen. Clinton an opportunity to agree with President Bush and then criticize him for not going far enough for people in need. I don’t know that this issue really becomes a voting issue in most peoples’ minds, but it is a strong stance to have, and one that we must make if we are to remain a moral authority in any capacity.

Why would a loving God allow innocent people to suffer? “I don’t know, I can’t wait to ask him.” This yielded more applause than anything thus far, which I think is a tell about what the American people want in a candidate. Just be honest. She continues on to talk about the Pope and the call to eliminate poverty, saying we haven’t done enough. I agree, but that argument is harder to make while spending $500 billion simultaneously rebuilding and occupying Iraq.

Bible stories and people’s favorite this-and-that never entertained or interested me. She mentions Chelsea’s name, which is good to remind women that she is a mother as well, and a damn good one from what we’ve (or haven’t) seen from our media and paparazzi. Hillary’s next question from a director of the Interfaith Youth Core is about united efforts to deal with global warming. She basically responds with rhetoric for a minute or two and then splashes in a mention of cap-and-trade and her plans for responsible carbon reduction. This stuff is important to know, but boring in a forum setting.

On the subject of Darfur and Somalia, among other devastated and war-torn areas of the world, Clinton had to balk at the idea of committing US troops to a purely humanitarian mission under a foreign flag. I agree that this isn’t the type of thing a candidate can promise. She uses examples of the tsunami in Sri Lanka and the earthquake in Pakistan to illustrate other ways the US can give humanitarian aid. The question wasn’t really plausible to begin with, but she definitely took the opportunity to point out ways the US can help the rest of the world without troops with guns.

Do you believe God wants you to be President? “I don’t presume anything about God.” This answer resonates with me having been around pushy Christians as well as those who lead purely by example and I’d say this was the strongest statement she could make. She goes on to say she makes her best efforts and hopes she can make a difference in people’s lives. Another resonant point she made was that we must not become complacent with our faith and think we have all the answers. You could almost see that as a critique of her audience, but the event even taking place is a testament to both sides’ willingness to be honest about issues that face all Americans.

___________________________________________

Now it’s Obama’s turn. They launch right into the “cling to guns and religion” question. He points out that his words were clumsy, which happens often on all three campaign trails. I think a strong argument to make in this forum was that the Bible says to cling to what is good, and reaffirming that he is a devout Christian and has worked his entire life and with the church to find opportunities the people of Chicago. I believe, and I could be mistaken, that the Bible also says something about humans being imperfect and something else about forgiveness.

As a response to the “elitist” remark he simply says “we try to tear everybody down instead of building people up”. He continues to say that he’s worked with the church to help everyone his entire life, before he was thinking of running for President as well. He appeals to the core values of all religions by saying “I am my brother’s keeper”, which may help but some Christian leaders don’t like the parallels of their religions with the other major faiths of the world. He certainly has never come across as an elitist to me, but then again I was passionate about these topics before he decided to run for office and the comment was generally more aimed at those who vote on single issues. Arizona has done this twice since I’ve lived here, you’ll see those knee-jerk reaction issues on the ballot and major press in church bulletins and conservative talk radio about it, in order to get people out to vote Republican across the board.

Can we find common ground on the abortion debate? First, acknowledge the moral dimension to the decision. It’s a mistake not to because it is a very powerful choice regardless. Second, “people of good will can exist on both sides”. We should work toward eliminating the teenage pregnancies by focusing on abstinence while recognizing health of women and age-appropriate education in regards to sex. This generally seems to be pandering, given the forum, but very solid points.

Senator Obama does not want to comment on when life begins, but he knows there is something powerful about that potential for life, which much be taken into account during the debate.

Campbell Brown piggybacks on to this by asking about assisted suicide. A response I hadn’t expected was his connection to a living will, which makes perfect sense. If we all have a living will many of these cases could easily be cleared-up. While doctors alone should not make that decision, Obama believes there should be some way for a humane and peaceful end.

The next question seems to be about the True Love Waits abstinence program in Uganda and the role faith plays in that program as well as taking the opportunity to get a laugh and compliment George Bush on the PEPAR program working in Uganda. Again, he co-opts the abstinence plan and goes further to include contraception and health treatment. Wrapping the question back around, he also discusses the issue of promiscuity as a social cause of the spread of HIV.

Senator Obama is then confronted with his “punished with a baby” statement, which was in his personal example involving his own daughters. He elaborates to say that he was referring to the possibility of them making a mistake and having sex at 13- or 14- and somehow got pregnant. Again, I believe these are more clumsy words and Obama is keen to point out this was in the same day he said children were a miracle. If a flat-out lie counts as a misspeak, this certainly does.

Being asked about the literal 6-day-theory of creation, to which he gives an honest and well-pointed answer. He says that he believes God created this earth, but it may have not been in 6- 24-hour days. I believe the interpretation should stay open as well, the dogmatic approach some Christians take to a translation of a translation of a two-thousand year old book is astonishing to me.

Global warming and climate control seems like an odd or at least awkward topic for a religious forum, but the person asking the question begins by saying he doesn’t buy into the idea of a war between the science and religion communities. Sen. Obama’s answer is very fluffy and wordy, but makes a few key points, in that we must look to our own generation to be good stewards of the land and not keep passing the buck.

The Audacity of Hope comes up in the discussion of Reverend Wright, when the question of just how the reverend brought him to Christ. The story that follows is just a great “The View” type anecdote of his life, which would be well-received by anyone in the audience if this were simply a book tour, but the rules of politics apply. He elaborates on the level of ministry received from Reverend Wright and points out that it was not only the reverend as his “spiritual advisor”. After his comment that the 20-second loop of “Reverend Wright’s greatest hits” is not representative of him as a person or that church as an organization the crowd broke his speech

On his life in Indonesia, it again takes on the feel of a book tour. He talks of a more tolerant Islam being practiced at the time, and the fact that he actually attended a Catholic school during his elementary years in Indonesia. He morphs this into a statement that all faiths can work together in a modern world and that Islam can be compatible with that world.

A poignant question on Dr. King’s dream of cutting poverty and the lack of results over the last forty years poses the challenge of cutting poverty in half within ten years. Mr. Obama enthusiastically makes the commitment, but with humility, point out the uphill battle facing our poverty-stricken neighborhoods. His response meanders into the area of tax reform, eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy and gaining energy independence. He wants to build a system of health care, to prevent disease rather than treat it at increasing costs. After school programs and early childhood education programs will also play a role in helping rebuild our communities. He declares an interest to keep the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, which I’m sure will play well to that audience.

“We have to be clear and unequivocal. We do not torture. Period. We don’t farm out torture. We don’t subcontract torture.” On the subject of torture Obama immediately rejects any use of torture on grounds of morality and efficiency. He points out that many from the intelligence community agree torture does not yield actionable intelligence. The strongest human argument here was that we will lead by example, and not concede civil liberties out of fear.

On the question of religion having far too much influence in public life, he feels we’ve fallen into a “false debate”. He condemns both extremes; that religion does not belong in any public discourse is wrong and that there should be no distinction between church and state is equally wrong. A strong question posed by Obama was to imagine Dr. King scrubbing religion from his speeches, or Abraham Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural Address.

___________________

The wrap-up was strong for Senator Obama, although not near as strong as it could have been had the debate closed on the subject of torture. Many Americans’ sensibilities are truly offended by the idea that we export our democracy and break our own laws. It undermines our safety internationally, so in that it is counterproductive. Hillary Clinton didn’t do poorly, but going before Obama didn’t serve her well. She’s not near as strong of a speaker and tends to have more annoying mannerisms when it’s clear she’s thinking or off-balance. The real winner tonight, however, was the Democratic Party. For the first time in a few weeks those within it weren’t attacking each other so directly. I’d trade all of the analysis and punditry for a Compassion Forum any day.

Something I found out only after the showing was that CNN invited him to participate in this forum and he declined. I understand why, but it doesn’t help get a whole perspective, and it’s a cop out in a way because now he can prepare for some of those tough questions of faith without having his own confusion take over. It was a smart move for the campaign, a dumb move for a person who wants people to get to know him better. I do hope to see John McCain in this type of setting in the future.

One final note on the “elitist” argument. I don’t really know anyone who that comment might have applied to who a) watches political talk news or listens to talk radio or b) regularly insults people by calling them an elitist. This whole story is perpetrated by the news, as they anticipate how people must feel for a few weeks until polls prove they are horribly wrong. True elites in the news are pushing this story like crazy, acting as though they alone are “public outcry”, and I just can’t wait for the PA primary and any that follow (now that former President Carter and Vice-President Al Gore have urged Hillary Clinton to halt her campaign). I want to see these pundits proven wrong and dumb, yet again, just like it happened with Reverend Wright. Despite everyone continuously talking about this, the public opinion has not changed. People aren’t swayed by that crap. The common man is waiting for two candidates to choose from. When the time comes they will go in and vote on the war, or the economy, or some other single issue. Most Americans don’t care about this silly world of politics.

Hilarious explanation of the US Electoral System!

If we have American Idol voting everyone can participate in, pay $1 for each vote, an actually trust means that we can at least attempt some form of electronic voting. If it works, start doing a national primary, a few months of campaigns and we pick the president. Hell, we should even run the campaigns like American Idol too. I’m only half-kidding because the technology is there and serious enough, and the people are fed up with this system.

read more | digg story

We also could seriously use a National Initiative system as well.

Two hundred-millionaires attack Obama for being out of touch

The irony about all the “outrage” that’s being manufactured over Barack Obama’s small-town Pennsylvania statement is that it’s coming exclusively from out-of-touch rich people like John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who are making the assumption that this is something small-town Pennsylvanians should be offended by.

I just had to post this. We have this mountain being made out of the little molehills of Obama’s campaign and ludicrous statements and outright lies of McCain and Clinton go by relatively untouched. When will politics as usual end? Hopefully January 20th, 2009 at noon EST we can have a uniting force telling Congress to get things done. Giving them the power to do their jobs back. The cowboy will have dropped the ropes and the bull of our economy and it will let loose.

read more | digg story

Stephen Colbert would make a great White House press secretary

I love Tina Fey, and I loved this monologue. I disagree, but if somehow I had to stare at a ballot that said McCain or Clinton, I’d pick Clinton. I just like Obama more. He enforces more of the positive, the same way these clips do.

Then there was this response, equally hilarious. I appreciate people who can laugh at themselves, one of the most awkward/hilarious moments in President Bush’s history was this White House press banquet where Stephen Colbert speaks.

Obama on the Hardball College Tour – good interview

No matter where you stand, this is another actually important piece of the election coverage. There is spin aplenty in the mainstream media, but direct conversations, debates, interviews and speeches are the best impressions we have besides campaigns own websites. Aside from the ‘A More Perfect Union’ speech in Philadelphia after the Reverend Wright comments surfaced, this is a great piece to watch.

Check it out here.

Finances of the candidates

Barack Obama is worth $1.3 million. This compared to John McCain’s $40 million and Hillary Clinton’s $35 million, looks pretty meager. This was before Sen. Clinton released her tax records which reflected nearly $110 million in income, but still very interesting. It’s hard to call it elitism when you’ve never touched poor. It’s and interesting slice of each of the candidates, check it out:

• Barack Obama

• John McCain

• Hillary Clinton

The candidates who have dropped out also make for an interesting read. These kinds of stories give us a better idea of what kind of walk our candidates walk, as they are out on the trail talking their talk. If you had $30-40 million, what would you do with it? Would you give to charity? Would you invest it all? Maybe a combination? Especially for candidates know they will be in the public eye.

read more | digg story

Since we continually have to bring up associates, let’s be fair

Rod Parsley and here’s a little story about one of his spiritual pupils.

Hagee calls the Catholic Church a “great whore” and a “false cult system” and compares Catholics to Nazis. This is absurd. McCain continues to embrace him, no media coverage for Teflon John.

This is a good showing, a condemnation of religious leaders who are on the fringe and represent extreme and radical views. But…

A more recent video tells a more complete story. He realized the answer to that question was no, he cannot win even the primary by angering those people. Falwell also apologized for blaming 9/11 on gays and the ACLU among others. I give it to Sen. McCain for standing up to some of the religious right in the past, but now would be a far better time to be cutting ties and standing against that radical anti-Catholic voice, anti-human rights voice. The problem this time is the comments of Hagee and Parsley are far more damning thank anything Reverend Wright said.