Arnold Schwarzenegger is a “true American hero”?

Really?

Arnold Schwarzenegger?

.

There has been much speculation about the possibility of Barack Obama’s candidacy being derailed by the ‘Bradley Effect’, so-named because Tom Bradley, an African-American candidate for governor in California in 1982, lost despite being ahead in most polls leading up to the election. The speculation was that people may have told pollsters that they would vote for an African-American candidate in order to appear politically correct, but when they got into the privacy of the voting booth, they voted against him based on some measure of latent racism.

This got me wondering if there might be a similar result in this presidential election. 

Is it possible that a significant number of self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans who are publicly voicing their support for Sarah Palin will, in the privacy of the voting booth, and based on some measure of latent conscience, cast their votes against the “spectacularly unqualified” vice-presidential candidate and the man who misguidedly chose her as his running mate?

.

So, Joe the Senator Biden is guaranteeing there will be a foreign incident generated to test the mettle of the new President, Barack Obama. John McCain has jumped all over this decrying, “We don’t need a president who invites testing. I have been tested.”

Oh, really? Tell us Senator McCain, what foreign policy decision did you ever have to make? What major crisis, foreign or domestic, have you ever averted? Oh, right, you say you were in the cockpit of your plane on the deck of an aircraft carrier off Cuba in 1962 during the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’. So, let me get this straight: you were sitting in a plane awaiting orders which, thankfully, never had to be issued, while President John F. Kennedy and his staff were negotiating a peaceful resolution. And this tested your presidential qualifications how?

Truth be told, you have been tested repeatedly during this presidential campaign and, sadly, you have failed every time. 

When faced with a financial shortfall during the primary, you circumvented your own campaign finance reform law in order to keep your campaign afloat. So much for ethics.

When Barack Obama declined to take you up on your offer of holding a series of town-hall meetings, you used this as justification for launching the very kind of fear and hate-mongering, race-baiting, negative campaign you and your wife promised you would never run. So much for integrity.

When the Russian army crossed into Georgia (provoked by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili who was probably emboldened to do so because of his relationship with you), your response was basically to tell the Russians to get out or else. Or else what? You then criticized Senator Obama for showing the prudence and restraint that you should have had. So much for diplomatic skills.

When the financial crisis hit, you flailed around, stabbing in the dark, and in trying to be bold and decisive, you instead showed yourself not to be in control of the situation or the members of your own party. So much for leadership.

And when it came to the most important test of any presidential candidate, the choice of a Vice-President, you offered up a supremely under qualified, vastly unknowledgeable, first-term governor whom you and your staff failed to properly vet. So much for judgment.

You have constantly misrepresented or lied outright about not only your opponent’s record, but your own as well. “I have a record. You can look it up.” But when a military veteran dared to call your bluff and actually looked up your voting record and confronted you with the truth, you brushed him off saying you had no idea which votes he was talking about. So much for honesty.

You have forsaken every principal you once championed and have embraced the divisive elements of your party you once stood so defiantly against. You have taken your once valiant biography and nearly reduced it to a cliché. You have mismanaged your campaign to the brink of defeat and failed to demonstrate even one moment of clarity and presidential preparedness. 

Senator McCain, I invite you to look up your record and that of your running mate and show me any indication that you will differ from George W. Bush on economic and foreign policies and that you are the better choice in this election. Study hard, Senator. There will be a test.

.

To the surprise of no one, Governor Sarah Palin’s appearance on NBC’s Saturday Night Live was roundly cheered by the right and just as roundly, though not universally, panned by the left. Her supporters said it showcased her charm and poise and gave her a chance to show her lighter side. Some of her critics opined that it only served to further reinforce the caricature that has been painted of her due to her self-imposed media embargo.

I think it was much more than that and much more nefarious. I found it to be a cleverly concealed series of pointed jabs which, when taken in their entirety, add up to a savaging of Sarah Palin’s image. If you’ve read my previous posts (and judging by my blog stats, you haven’t), you’ve probably noticed I am occasionally possessed by the conspiracy theorist in us all. So, with that in mind, I offer my take on the Governor’s SNL gig.

The opening segment starts with a fictional press conference with Tina Fey playing the role of Governor Palin and continuing to poke fun at her and John McCain. It then cuts to the real Sarah Palin who explains to SNL’s Executive Producer, Lorne Michaels, why she demurred from doing the skit herself. “I just didn’t think it was a realistic depiction of the way my press conferences would have gone.” The key phrase there is “would have gone” which further emphasizes the fact that since she was picked by McCain as his running mate, Governor Palin has never held a press conference.

Next up is Mark Wahlberg, who is so intent on settling his feud with Andy Sandberg, he doesn’t even acknowledge Palin’s presence. More importantly, as Wahlberg exits, the Governor shares the screen with Abraham Lincoln (an Illinois legislator who became President), a Rockette (possibly alluding to Palin’s pageant background) and the rear end of a llama? Maybe they couldn’t get a horse on short notice. 

Enter Alec Baldwin, an especially vocal Palin critic, who mistakes Governor Palin for Tina Fey then proceeds to call her “that woman”, “Caribou Barbie” and “that horrible woman”. When Lorne Michaels introduces the Governor as ‘The Governor’, the only compliment Baldwin can muster is, “You are way hotter in person” reducing her to little more than a sex object. And the llama’s still there.

Baldwin then informs the fake Sarah Palin (Fey) that the real Sarah Palin is there and as Fey exits, she passes the Governor and as with Mark Wahlberg, scarcely acknowledges her. Governor Palin then takes the podium to announce she’s “not going to take any of your questions” and to deliver the ubiquitous “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!”

We were then forced to sit through some seriously unfunny ‘comedy’ bits and more interestingly, two ads for Barack Obama–the first addressing women’s issues and the second tying John McCain to George Bush.

On to ‘Weekend Update’ where Governor Palin reappears ostensibly to “clear up some misconceptions about her campaign” but instead she declares she’s “not going to do the piece we rehearsed” because it “might be bad for the campaign” and “might be over the line” and leaves it to a very pregnant Amy Poehler to deliver a Palin-stereotype-laden rap song which managed to insult Native Alaskans, Todd Palin, and ultimately Governor Palin herself. Oh, and Poehler shoots a moose. All right, she shot him with her finger and it wasn’t a real moose. So, Poehler does the rap while Palin does some seat dancing in silence proving, once again, if you take away her script, Governor Palin has nothing to say.

Heckuva job, Palie. Joke’s on you.

This just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

.

an·ar·chism

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Date: 1642

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

On MSNBC’s ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’, Former Governor of Pennsylvania and former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge declared that Barack Obama’s economic plans, specifically the notion of “spreading the wealth”, were “moving down that path” to socialism.

My question: If a major candidate for president, in this case John McCain, were to claim that he is “always for less government”, that he is “fundamentally a deregulator”,  that he agrees with his “hero”, Ronald Reagan, who said “government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem” and that “government should get out of your way” would Governor Ridge conclude that this candidate was moving down the path to anarchism?

If “less government” is “always” preferable, by extrapolation, no government is the ideal.

No government = anarchism. 

Therefore, John McCain is an ANARCHIST.

All right, John McCain is not an anarchist. But by cashing his monthly Social Security check, by cashing his military disability checks, by using his government sponsored health care plan, John McCain, at least in part, is a socialist—as are we all.

Today’s related random logic:

Was it socialism when Alaska Governor and John McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin enacted a windfall profits tax on oil companies and distributed the funds (wealth) to the citizens of Alaska?

Yes, it was.

Therefore, Sarah Palin is a SOCIALIST.

.

The media are not “beating up” on ‘Joe the Plumber”.

‘Joe the Plumber’ IS A FRAUD.

The media are exposing ‘Joe the Plumber’ as the FRAUD that he is.

John McCain’s campaign is exposing him as the fraud he is.

We now return to our irregularly, unscheduled blog.

.

I will write more once I give it all a chance to coalesce save this:

The ”line” of the debate, the one that is likely to be replayed ad nauseam, was when McCain said, “I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”

What they may not include is the line which follows immediately where McCain said, “I’m going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.” He then spent the next couple of minutes not enunciating what that direction might be.

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

This is given as the reason for Barack Obama’s surge in the polls.

It’s not the economy, stupid.

It’s John McCain’s stupid reaction to the economy, stupid.

Stupid.

.

From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

equiv·a·lence

Pronunciation:

\i-ˈkwiv-lən(t)s, -ˈkwi-və-\

Function: noun

Date: circa 1541

1 a: the state or property of being equivalent b: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction

On Saturday, I posted this to my blog: http://mitch4president.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/a-call-for-sanity/

In it, I took the position that the rhetoric of John McCain, Sarah Palin and their campaign had created a potentially incendiary atmosphere at some of their recent rallies which was only being exacerbated by Barack Obama and his campaign by using terms like “erratic” when speaking about Senator McCain. I felt that further escalation in this vitriolic war of words could lead to an unfortunate and violent conclusion. I then called on both candidates to consider where this was going and offered a proposal for a return to sanity.

I also posted it to a ‘Friendly Political Ranting’ forum and these were the replies:

“I’m sorry– McCain is impulsive and unpredictable, and prone to explosive, vicious outbursts– I don’t think it’s below the belt at all for Obama to describe him as erratic.”

“I believe this also – it’s hardly dirty politics to point out these “flaws” that many of the rest of us see (and fear) also.”

“Me, three! Although sweet talking McCain is probably a very good idea right about now if there’s any hope that someone might read your letter and consider it. Saying “Senator McCain is “erratic”" might well be true, but you do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

“I have to agree on that point. Quoting wikitionary, “erratic (adjective) unsteady, random; prone to unexpected changes; not consistent” 

Where did anyone get the idea erratic had anything to do with describing someone’s age. “He’s erratic.” Does not equate with “He’s elderly.” Never has. The initial reference to Obama’s use of the word erratic as a negative reference to McCain being elderly, came from McCain’s campaign in their daily talking points. Just like McCain’s campaign quick reference to the word sexism when describing Obama’s campaign’s response to naming Palin as McCain’s running mate. Nobody’s ever equated the two words before. 

According to the dictionary, the use of the word erratic seems appropriate in describing McCain’s response once the economy grabbed the headlines: wandering around New York and DC when he was s’posed to be at the capital or white house, lying to Letterman to get out of his show and being caught giving the Couric interview on the SAME network, warbling on his ideas/statements and appearance at the debate (I’m being kind here.), etc, etc, etc.”

“I’ll fifth or sixth that. 

McCain’s campaign told out right lies. Obama described the behavior of a candidate who suspended his campaign and then didn’t; one who veered from pillar to post like a fighter that had taken an unexpected uppercut.”

“We were being specific about the latest round of vitriol, were we not? If we were then the McCain camp is truly the transgressor. If you want to go back then all sides will offend during the heat of a campaign. In that case I think it fair to measure the degree and volume of misleading sputum generated by each camp.”

And part of my response to the replies:

“With all due respect (and we all know what that phrase means), you seem to be missing my point. It’s not about what’s fair in politics. 

When McCain, and more predominantly Palin, rile up their crowds to the extent that they have, the people in those crowds cease thinking rationally because those types of attacks are designed specifically to appeal to the primitive portion of our brains. Obama’s use of the word “erratic” only serves to exacerbate a volatile situation, the escalation of which might cause someone who is already on the edge of reason to react in an unreasonable and potentially violent fashion. 

The point is the candidates for the highest office in the land should stop for just one short moment, think about where this could lead, and try to restore our collective sanity before something tragic occurs. Given this country’s history, that’s a real possibility. 

And if, after taking that breath, the two sides decide the best course of action is to keep throwing increasingly vitriolic epithets, then so be it. But keep this in mind: Fighting fire with fire only leads to bigger fires. And in this case, we could all get burned. “

Next came the message from Congressman John Lewis which said Senator McCain and Governor Palin were “sowing the seeds of hatred and division” and compared it to the tactics of Governor George Wallace which “created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.”

The McCain campaign responded, “The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama’s record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign.”

Is Congressman Lewis equating Senator McCain with Governor Wallace? Of course not. Congressman Lewis is saying that he witnessed firsthand the result of Governor Wallace’s language and fears an equivalent response to Senator McCain’s. Whether or not the comparison itself has equivalence, is not relevant. What matters is the type of visceral response the comments of Senator McCain and Governor Palin provoke.

Then last night, came this exchange between Rachel Maddow, host of the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and David Frum a former speechwriter for George W. Bush:

The gist of Mr. Frum’s argument, as I see it, is that everyone, no matter how “small” their “plate” bears some responsibility for the degradation of the tone of our political discourse. Furthermore, when Ms. Maddow and others in her position use sarcasm and humor in their observations on substantive issues, it only serves to continue the downward spiral of that degradation and if we are to get an serious discussion of these issues, everyone must elevate the level and tone of their own rhetoric.

Ms. Maddow counters that there are “different kinds of discourse” and humor has its place among them. She argues that there is “something qualitatively different” between what she does on her show and the threats of violence a few members of McCain and Palin’s crowds have shouted in response to the candidates’ vituperative statements. I took that to mean that there is something of an equivalence quotient which can be used to gauge appropriateness.

They’re both right. Barack Obama has said, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” but when he and his spokespeople respond to the McCain-Palin’s riling of their crowds with harsh words, “fair” or not, of their own, it doesn’t serve to quell the anger or repudiate the smears and misinformation. It only serves to perpetuate the hostility which then results in hostility towards McCain and his supporters. Now, I’m not saying that attacks such as those perpetrated by the McCain campaign should go unanswered, but the way to fight angry lies is with truth, not more angry language. The word “erratic”, despite what Senator Obama and his surrogates say, is a reference to Senator McCain’s age and mental acuity. And if it is distasteful to me, an Obama supporter, imagine how it sounds to someone who is McCain supporter and already in an agitated state. When partisan surrogates and commentators appear on network and cable news and use their position to further spread their preferred candidates’ propaganda, it doesn’t add insight or perspective and their angry tone towards one another is just more fuel for the fire. 

The argument over who started it and that the degree of the transgressions somehow gives one side or the other a higher moral ground is specious at best. Sure you would prefer a candidate to be more circumspect before starting a war of words, but the response must be equally measured lest that war escalates into something far worse.

On the other hand, as Ms. Maddow pointed out earlier in that same show, when confronted with the absurdity of Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of President Bush’s ‘Saddam has WMDs’ justification for starting the War in Iraq, being in charge of this country’s strategy as to our own nuclear weapons proliferation—Mr. Wolfowitz thinks we need more—this fairly cries out for a cynically humorous commentary. I have watched the Rachel Maddow Show since its inception, and whereas I feel her colleague and mentor, Keith Olbermann, sometimes goes to far the tone of his snark, I don’t think Mr. Frum’s criticism  of Ms. Maddow, and his perceived role for her, are at all accurate or fair. Ms. Maddow treats serious matters with respect commensurate with their gravity and less serious issues with a lighter, often humorous touch. If it is Mr. Frum’s desire to remove all humor from our political discourse, he must first get politicians to stop saying and doing things which are patently ridiculous.

Ms. Maddow’s interview with Mr. Frum does serve to illustrate my original point. It shows that it is possible for people with disparate points of view to engage in an intelligent conversation even after one of them opens by insulting the other. Rather than countering Mr. Frum’s personal attacks with some manner of retaliation, she asked him to clarify his position and the two were ultimately able to have a civil discussion. Had Mr. Frum done the same thing with a more confrontational, less analytical host, it could have disintegrated into the kind of shouting match which is all too prevalent these days and which accomplishes nothing.

The third and final presidential debate is tomorrow night and Senator McCain has promised to raise the issue of William Ayres, the “washed up, unrepentant, domestic terrorist” whom Senator McCain claims he “doesn’t give a damn about”. We shall see if that actually happens and the response by Senator Obama.

Today’s random logic: Why is Senator Obama’s “relationship” to someone Senator McCain feels is irrelevant relevant?

.

For his part, Senator Obama needs to stop saying Senator McCain is “erratic” in a not-so-veiled attack on his age and mental stability—it is unseemly and off-putting. ‘Senator’ is a title of honor and respect and all of you, all 100 of you, need to show much more of each. And both sides need to rein in their surrogates who are as responsible as anyone for the vitriolic atmosphere which has smothered what was once the most interesting and entertaining presidential race in my lifetime. We are constantly told that we’re already living in a dangerous world—you should not be making it more so. This, too, applies to the ‘commentators’, the so-called ‘talking heads’ of network and cable news. You are entitled to your opinions, but when you are perpetuating the same lies and innuendoes spewed by campaign flacks, you are no longer giving opinion, you are spreading propaganda.

And while you’re at it, could you just tell us the truth, or at the very least, something approaching the truth. We’re big boys and girls—we can take it. Now, we understand for emphasis’ sake, it is necessary to overstate your position and understate your opponent’s. We understand it’s politics. We understand politicians lie, in fact, we expect it. But for the next three and a half weeks or so, if you find it impossible to keep the discourse totally honest, could you at least keep it within the bounds of hyperbole and not out-and-out fabrication.

Every day, the economic outlook is bleaker than it was the day before—the world’s financial markets are in freefall, people are losing their livelihoods, their homes. This is the time for our leaders to pull us together not tear us apart. So when I saw how rancorous things had gotten at some recent McCain-Palin rallies and the antagonistic response from the Obama-Biden camp, it was more than a little disheartening. Sure, we have seen some typical rough-and-tumble politics, but things have gotten out of hand. Being an Obama guy, I not only thought it was time for everyone to take a couple of steps back, to take a couple of deep breaths, to try and calm things down before something tragic occurs, I thought it might be time for Senator Obama to craft another inspirational speech reminding us of how this campaign started, how we got to where we are, and where we need to go in order to regain our collective sanity. But that was just me being selfish, I guess.

No, it has to be a truly non-partisan effort. This, therefore is my proposal:

All four candidates, Senator John Sidney McCain III, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Governor Sarah Louise Heath Palin and their families should convene this Sunday (Too short a notice? Monday works for me.) with Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church for a non-denominational, secular yet somehow non-secular, informal gathering for unity and tolerance. 

I envision you all on stage, getting to know each other on a personal rather than adversarial level, demonstrating to the country and perhaps the world that while we may not always, or ever, agree, we respect each other as human beings. And after some sage words from Pastor Warren and/or the candidates themselves, you invite the members of the public in attendance, hopefully as diverse as the country itself, to join you so they can also get to know you on a personal level. Who knows? You just might learn a thing or two about them as well.

Refreshments will be served.

.