OBAMA TAKES THE GOP TO SCHOOL

Sorry I haven't been blogging much ... been crazy busy lately.

Anyway, if you haven't heard about this, Obama recently attended a House Republican retreat in Baltimore on Friday and spent about an hour just fielding questions from angry Republicans. I know it's a little long, but it is really something to see. I mean, the talking heads are saying that this is the best political theater they've ever seen, and I pretty much agree. And I would dare anyone to say that Bush or McCain could have done this.

Heck, I'm not even sure Clinton could have done it ...

To see a link to the video, please click here.

OBAMA VS. FIRE

I can't help but notice that the increase in frequency and intensity of California wildfires has some of my Santa Barbara friends a little spooked as of late. Well, no need to fear fellow citizens, Obama is on the case ...


Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire

IS OBAMA NOBEL-WORTHY?

So, one of my Republican friends chats me today to dogmatically state that it is indeed "absurd" and "shameful" that Obama should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. While I was able to get him to back off the shameful comment, he's still pretty convinced the whole thing is absurd.

Now, while I can understand those who feel the President hasn't accomplished enough for this prestigious honor, I think maybe (lighting rod) Micheal Moore said it the best in his recent post. And I especially enjoyed this quote ...

P.S. Your opposition has spent the morning attacking you for bringing such good will to this country. Why do they hate America so much? I get the feeling that if you found the cure for cancer this afternoon they'd be denouncing you for destroying free enterprise because cancer centers would have to close. There are those who say you've done nothing yet to deserve this award. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that you've offered to walk into the minefield of hate and try to undo the irreparable damage the last president did is not only appreciated by me and millions of others, it is also an act of true bravery. That's why you got the prize. The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet. Let's not let them down.

I so agree with this!

Anyway, if this entire political jibber-jabber has you down, I suggest you watch this video of pigs the size of teacups. I mean, how can you be angry after that? ...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

FINALLY!

After several months of Norm Coleman assishness, Al Franken is finally named the second Senator (elect) from the great state of Minnesota. Go Vikings!

Anyway, it is now time for the Democrats to grow a pair and get something substantial done. I, for example, want real health care reform WITH A PUBLIC OPTION. If the Dems -- yes, including you, Obama -- can't get this done now, you are going to lose seats in 2010 ... and probably should.

TL Out!

OBAMA IS TREKKING LEFT

I know Obama isn't perfect, but (I'm sorry) I just love this guy ... I can't help it. First, we find out that he reads Spider-Man. And now we find out he really likes Star Trek. Here's an excerpt from a recent Newsweek interview:

And the last movie you saw?

Now, movies I've been doing OK [with] because it turns out we got this nice theater on the ground floor of my house … So Star Trek, we saw this weekend, which I thought was good. Everybody was saying I was Spock, so I figured I should check it out and—[the president makes the Vulcan salute with his hand].

Very good.

Yes, absolutely.

Did you watch that when you were growing up?

I used to love Star Trek. You know, Star Trek was ahead of its time. There was a whole—the special effects weren't real good, but the storylines were always evocative, you know, there was a little commentary and a little pop philosophy for a 10-year-old to absorb.

A lot of U.N. stuff.

Yes, exactly, right.

I swear, Barack might just be the coolest guy on the planet right now. In fact, he might just be the coolest guy in the entire United Federation of Planets.

THIS DEBATE IS TORTURE

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I wanted to say a couple things about Obama's decision not to punish those who committed acts of torture (on the condition that they were following the guidelines outlined by Bush's "Justice" Department) ...

Let me start off by saying that I generally agree with the anger expressed by many liberals regarding Obama's actions here. I mean, the argument that "they were just following orders" didn't fly for the Nazi's in WWII, and it shouldn't fly in this situation either. Heck, even the two likable soldiers in A Few Good Men didn't get off scot-free after Nicholson admitted to giving them a "code red" (I know, I have to relate everything to movies or television ... I can't help it). Anyway, I think the reason this excuse doesn't hold water is expressed pretty well by Kieth Olbermann's Special Comment on the subject.

Having said that, I have to admit to feeling a whole lot better after reading this story in the Washington Post regarding the intense debate in the Obama administration as to whether or not they should release those torture memos. I, of course, recommend reading the whole thing, but I would like to focus on the following quotes from the article:

Five CIA directors -- including Leon E. Panetta and his four immediate predecessors -- and Obama's top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release of interrogation details in four "top secret" memos in which Bush administration lawyers sanctioned harsh tactics...

...Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had said he supported the disclosures because he saw the information's release as inevitable and because the White House was willing to promise that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for any abuse. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen sided with Gates.

Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day.

So, I had two main thoughts upon reading this:

1) Even though I disagree with Obama's decision not to prosecute those people who abused the detainees, I do think Obama deserves a great deal of credit for releasing those memos at all. That took courage in my opinion.

2) How cool is it that Obama handled the situation the way he did, and how happy are we that we have a president who approaches situations this way instead of simply "going with his gut" or some such nonsense.

Finally, I do still hold out hope that there will be justice and was heartened by Barack's later statement:

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

At the end of the day, aren't those really the guys we want behind bars anyway?

HOPE FLOATS

Since The Original Average Man (TOAM) recently made reference to Naomi Klein's funny and insightful article in which she assigns hope-based terms to disappointed Obamaniacs, I was inspired to make a couple comments of my own ...

Like many Obama fans, it seems that TOAM woke up this morning with a nasty Hopover; defined as:

Like a hangover, a hopeover comes from having overindulged in something that felt good at the time but wasn't really all that healthy, leading to feelings of remorse, even shame. It's the political equivalent of the crash after a sugar high. Sample sentence: "When I listened to Obama's economic speech my heart soared. But then, when I tried to tell a friend about his plans for the millions of layoffs and foreclosures, I found myself saying nothing at all. I've got a serious hopeover."

Okay, maybe I'm still a little drunk on the Obama Kool-Aid, but I'm not quite there yet. Although, I do admit to being on a little bit of a Hoper coaster lately. At any rate, just to show that I'm not completely in the tank for Barack, I am jumping on Naomi's quest to banish Larry Summers from public life. I have to admit that I didn't know much about the guy before this election, but the more I learn, the more queasy I get. In fact, I'm currently in the middle of Ms. Klien's awesome book The Shock Doctrine, and it seems that Larry's embracing of "disaster capitalism" goes quite a ways back. And here's part what Naomi Klien says about him in this recent column:

... that's the problem with Larry. For all his appeals to absolute truths, he has been spectacularly wrong again and again. He was wrong about not regulating derivatives. Wrong when he helped kill Depression-era banking laws, turning banks into too-big-to-fail welfare monsters. And as he helps devise ever more complex tricks and spends ever more taxpayer dollars to keep the financial casino running, he remains wrong today.

So, yes, I'm still in love with the idea of hopey. But let's call a duck and duck: Summers smells fowl, and I hope he gets kicked off the island.

Having said that, though, my other great hope is that my lefty friends aren't running their feelings through the InstaHope-A-Matic and won't soon develop Hopelash.

Peace Out.

TL

OBAMA RESPONDS TO THE LEFT

If you didn't see Obama's speech on the economy today, you really should. If interested, you can see it here. Anyway, I thought it worth mentioning the defense of his economic plan from some on the Left like Paul Krugman. Here's part of it ...

On the other hand, there have been some who don't dispute that we need to shore up the banking system, but suggest that we have been too timid in how we go about it. They say that the federal government should have already preemptively stepped in and taken over major financial institutions the way that the FDIC currently intervenes in smaller banks, and that our failure to do so is yet another example of Washington coddling Wall Street. So let me be clear - the reason we have not taken this step has nothing to do with any ideological or political judgment we've made about government involvement in banks, and it's certainly not because of any concern we have for the management and shareholders whose actions have helped cause this mess.

Rather, it is because we believe that preemptive government takeovers are likely to end up costing taxpayers even more in the end, and because it is more likely to undermine than to create confidence. Governments should practice the same principle as doctors: first do no harm. So rest assured - we will do whatever is necessary to get credit flowing again, but we will do so in ways that minimize risks to taxpayers and to the broader economy. To that end, in addition to the program to provide capital to the banks, we have launched a plan that will pair government resources with private investment in order to clear away the old loans and securities - the so-called toxic assets - that are also preventing our banks from lending money.

So, I don't know if Obama is right or not about this stuff, but he sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about when you listen to the speech. He's a very impressive man.

TOI - PART DEAUX

So, my friends George and Patrick, didn't even budge a little regarding my argument that the Dems should think about backing off Obama right now. Well, not one to go down without a fight, I decided to devote another post to my comments on their comments. Here goes ...

- You are both poopy heads.

- Okay, I read the Rolling Stone article ... Here are my brief high level thoughts: I totally agree that it's a very thorough account of the history behind this financial mess we're in, and I actually do share the feelings of the author (as well as those of you two). But that was never really my point. I mean, yeah, I'm pissed that the Republicans deregulated everything and that Bush's incompetence made a bad situation worse. And yeah, the rich have been getting richer, and the middle class has been getting screwed. That -- I would argue -- is one of the reasons we elected Obama in the first place. I think the key question is whether or not Barack really intends to maintain that pattern; where his heart is. It is my feeling that - based on his policies and budget -- his intention is to reverse the trend, no?

- I don't know Heilbrunn from Adam; I just enjoyed the post because it sort of mimicked the way I've been feeling about the Left over the last few days. Just because he's a hack, doesn't mean he's wrong about this issue.

- For the record, I am not suggesting that Democrats should be like Republicans and check in their brains at the door. All I am saying is that we should be looking at the bigger picture here. If you analyze Obama's budget, you certainly can't argue with the fact that it is extremely progressive. The main problem in my opinion is that he is going to have this gigantic fight on his hands just to push through all those worthy goals, and the Repugs have already shown that they are going to do everything in their power to stop it and to stop him. So, what chance does he have if the Left is already declaring him an economic failure after only 2 months? No, we don't have to be sheeple, but yes, I think it's important to be generally united behind Barack right now.

- Let me try to put my thoughts into a bigger context ... I am not saying that I agree with Geithner's philosophy. And I am also not saying that Obama is king and that you guys shouldn't say anything bad about him. What upsets me is this idea that Wall Street "owns" Obama and that his approach to the banking crisis is proof that he's in bed with these guys. If you truly believe that, then how can you trust anything he does? Sure, criticize all you want, but call it a mistake or bad judgement or whatever. Because the implication I heard at dinner was that Obama is doling out money to rich banksters as payback for all those campaign contributions. If you really think that's true, then Obama is just some sleazy politician. Well, I'm still all about the hope thing, and I choose not to believe that.

- At the end of the day, the question is not about how angry we are at the past; it's about what do we now. Sure, it would feel great to nationalize all the banks and kick the bastards out. But as I said last night, Obama is already fighting off claims that he's a socialist from every direction. So, taking over the banks could actually be political suicide. And if that's true, then forget about all the other good stuff that you do acknowledge he is trying to do.

- Batman is not Bush.

Sincerely,

Trekking Left

TOI

I have a new motto today: TOI ... Trust Obama's Instincts. Right after the Repuglican convention way back in September, I wrote an entry defending Obama against all the left leaning critics saying that Obama wasn't angry enough to beat Palin ... er, I mean McCain. And, at that time, I told Obama to stick to his plan and to just keep doing his thing.

Well, it's a few months later, and it seems that Obama has a new liberal assault to fend off, and that's the arrows being thrown at his recent economic plan. Now, for the record, I'm not an economist; nor do I pretend to understand the chaotic world that is Wall Street finance. And it's also fair to say that I'm generally not a big fan of Geithner's overall philosophy regarding the solutions to this banking nightmare. Having said that, however, I really do think we tear down Obama at our own peril.

I kind of thought I was the only one having these feelings until I read this recent entry on Huffington Post. I hope Mr. Heilbrunn doesn't mind, but I'm going to break from tradition and print this post in its entirety:

The chorus of criticism of President Obama's economic plan has been almost deafening, and it isn't coming from Republicans but Democrats. Sure, the Republicans are engaging in scare tactics about tens of trillions in deficits, but it's the liberal naysayers such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who've been the real critics.

They should lay off. Krugman's lamentations about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's bank rescue plan simply don't add up. Is the plan perfect? No. But it does provide a road map to recovery, one that can be amended in coming weeks and months. Krugman's complaints, by contrast, reek of theology. The notion that a Wall Street cabal has captured Obama and that taxpayers will be on the hook for the bad bank loans rests on the assumption that the economy won't recover. But if the Geithner plan works -- as I suspect it will -- then these objections will seem picayune and pointless.

Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the liberal attack on the Obama administration is that it betrays a kind of pathological political death-wish among Democrats. When Ronald Reagan was trying to extricate America from recession in his first term, Republicans weren't denouncing him. Democrats, by contrast, seem to have no compunction about flaying their president a few months into his first term as courting failure. No doubt they depict it as concern for his success. But it remains astonishing that a variety of pundits and lawmakers continue to underestimate Obama, who is, by a wide margin, the most shrewd and thoughtful president America has had in decades. Will Obama rescue the economy? Yes, he can. But not if the Democrats try to stop him first.

Here's the thing ... This economic crisis is like nothing we've faced in the history of this country. I may not be happy with Geithner, but he's the man Obama picked, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he turns out to be a disaster, then I'll be the first to say I was wrong. But for the moment, let's stand together behind this guy, because I'm just not all that interested in setting the stage for President Jindal.

YES PECAN!

Ben & Jerry recently created "Yes Pecan!" ice cream flavor for Obama.

Here are some suggestions floated around for a W. based flavor ...

- Grape Depression
- The Housing Crunch
- Abu Grape
- Cluster Fudge
- Nut'n Accomplished
- Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfucker... Swirl
- Iraqi Road
- Chock 'n Awe
- WireTapioca
- Impeach Cobbler
- Guantanmallow
- imPeachmint
- Heck of a Job, Brownie!
- Neocon Politan
- RockyRoad to Fascism
- The Reese's-cession
- Cookie D'oh!
- Nougalar Proliferation
- Death by Chocolate... and Torture
- Freedom Vanilla Ice Cream
- Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder
- Credit Crunch
- Mission Pecanplished
- Country Pumpkin
- Chunky Monkey in Chief
- WMDelicious
- Chocolate Chimp
- Bloody Sundae
- Caramel Preemptive Stripe
&
- I broke the law and am responsible for the deaths of thousands...with nuts

TOO MUCH NOOZ HAWKISHNESS

In an a genuine attempt to embrace President Barack Obama's message of bipartisanship, I have been attempting to refrain from my usual instinct to go one-on-one with the many conservative columnists and bloggers in Santa Barbara. I mean, hey, my guy won; I don't have to be arrogant about it. That being said, I do admit that some of the writers over there at Noozhawk really know how to push my buttons. In fact, it wasn't even one day after Obama defeated McCain that I had to read this kind of crankiness from them:

In his acceptance speech Obama acknowledged those of us whose vote he didn’t get. He claimed to want to earn our trust. Fine. We aren’t going to agree to socialism because we work hard for our money. Share the wealth of the shadow banking bandits — not ours — We-The-People. We want our borders secured and our country protected against radical Islam. We don’t think it’s fair to nationalize health care without nationalizing the legal profession ...

Okay, TL, let it go ... It's just a little ranting from a sore loser.

So, I tried to lay low for a while, hiding my eyes from such vitriol and just enjoying the Obama victory. But, no, the much too prolific (and curmudgeonly) Harris Sherline couldn't even give me a week to soak in Obama's inauguration before spending an entire column trying to rip it (and him) apart. It's just a speech, man; why all the rage?

Okay, TL, take a breath.

Let's be constructive and talk about a few of Mr. Sherline's complaints. We'll start with this:

Whose "collective failure"? The fault lies with our politicians, who have steadily expanded the role of government in the economy and have been unwilling to restrain spending.

You're joking, right? The main reason for our current economic nightmare is years of Republicans deregulating everything they could get their hands on. In other words, we're in this mess because government's role has been severely restricted; not expanded. And that spending you want restrained so much ... Well, let me remind you that Bush has raised our national debt more than all other presidents in history COMBINED. And wasn't it your hero, Reagan, who said deficits don't matter?

Anyway, here's the next quote I'd like to look at:

So far, his vision doesn’t seem to include fiscal restraint. With something on the order of $2 trillion of new spending in the offing, I don’t intend to be led somewhere I know is wrong.

Again, where was your anger when Bush was spending us into the ground, huh? I mean, NOW you guys care about fiscal restraint!? The fact is that almost any economist worth their salt will tell you that we have to pump money into the system right away to get the economy moving again. Yes, it sucks, but now is not the time to worry about deficits.

And then there's this gem:

It’s hard to know where to begin with this litany of ambitious goals. Who knows what any of this means, except perhaps his health-care prescription, which he seems to think should be some form of nationalized health care. This is a formula for a health-care disaster. Socialized health care has never worked as promised in any society, generally downgrading the quality of care and causing rationing.

As I've blogged about before, this is my favorite conservative talking point; it's one of those things that it is totally not true, but if you say it enough, people believe it. I don't want to get off on a rant about health care, but here's a quick quote from the recent MSN article on this subject:

Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.

So, you don't want the government running health care, Mr. Sherline? Well, guess what, I don't want Wall Street running it either. We all know how well they do with our money.

Next one:

This is a repudiation of the use of torture and the presumed abuses of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA). However, Obama does not offer any alternative to protect the nation? He has already signed an executive order to close Guantanamo — without having the slightest idea of what to do with the prisoners there and without any agreements with other nations to take them.

It's no secret that Guantanamo has done more to recruit terrorists than anything besides the Iraq war itself. And throwing someone in the slammer with no trial and (often) no evidence is un-American and unpatriotic. How would you like it, Mr. Sherline, if they did that to you? Obama's people are going to review the case of every person held at Gitmo (imagine that), and he will figure out what to do with each and every one of them. And for those who can't be set free or sent to other countries, what do you actually think will happen to them? Do you really believe they are going to be dropped in the streets of Santa Barbara or something? Please.


Finally, Mr. Sherline ends with this:

At the risk of being pilloried as another negative, nay-saying conservative, my take on Obama’s inaugural address is that it was long on platitudes and short on substance. The most important message he conveyed to me is his intent to turn America into another socialist state.

Here's what that sounded like to me ... I don't mean to be critical, but Obama is a Commie.

The reality here is that the negative, nay-saying conservatives have been in charge of all branches of government for most of the last eight years, and look where we're at as a country right now. I know you'd like us to lose our collective memories in regards to Bush's America, but that's not going to happen.

We tried it your way ... time for change.

RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A BIG FAT IDIOT

... is the title of Al Franken's 1996 book about the Right's most popular comedian.

So, I don't know why, but the title of that book popped into my head when I heard about these recent comments from Mr. Limbaugh (when asked to compose a 400-word statement about his hopes for Obama's presidency):

“Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” ... See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

Okay, first of all, it was 8 years of Republican "conservatism" that mostly lead to the current horrible state of our union. And, secondly, doesn't hoping Obama fails mean hoping the country fails?

I have better titles for Limbaugh than idiot, but this is a family show.

WHAT NOW?

Uh-oh, I think this might be me :)



Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

44. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

So, I was asked yesterday why I haven't posted anything since the election. Well, the answer is ... I simply can't find the words to express my feelings. Seriously, I keep thinking I'm going to wake up any moment and watch McCain on MSNBC giving a press conference to announce his Chief of Staff or something. But it's not a dream, is it? Or maybe it is a dream in the best possible sense. After eight dark years that is W.'s reign, we just elected a smart man; a good man; a genuinely compassionate man; and yes, a black man. Who would have thought?

We're not a perfect nation: a few states (including mine) collectively decided to add hate and discrimination into law (I guess gay is the new black). And it sure didn't take long for my victory bubble to deflate a little after reading this ugliness in Noozhawk. I mean, does the following sound at all "gracious" to you?

Yet, if Obama proves himself, we will gladly give him his due. But he’d better protect our country. And he’d better rein in his spendthrift Democrat majority in Congress ...

Right, it's the Democrats who have spent us into the ground. Then, there's this ...

I’m sorry to find many of my “liberal” friends are psychological bullies who seek to silence genuine questions using insults and attacks. Such tactics are no doubt effective with some people — by intimidating them into silence you can convince yourself that they agree ...

Right, it's the liberals who yelled "Kill Him!" and "Terrorist!" at their rallies. And finally, there's this little gem ...

In his acceptance speech Obama acknowledged those of us whose vote he didn’t get. He claimed to want to earn our trust. Fine. We aren’t going to agree to socialism because we work hard for our money. Share the wealth of the shadow banking bandits — not ours — We-The-People. We want our borders secured and our country protected against radical Islam. We don’t think it’s fair to nationalize health care without nationalizing the legal profession ...

Huh?

So, no, we clearly aren't there yet. But let there be no doubt: Today is a good day in America.

TL MAKES HIS FINAL PUSH

Well, the election is just around the corner, and this is probably my last post before Tuesday. So, I'd just like to reiterate how excited I am to vote YES for Barack Obama and NO on Prop 8. I'll leave you with a couple of funny videos to bring the points home:

Opie and Ritchie make the case for Obama ...




Hmm, gay marriage doesn't affect me at all ...



VOTE!

WASSUP 2008

The really cool thing about this video is that those are the original actors ...

RETHINKING THE BLAME GAME

Now that the pit bull with lipstick has given McCain a "surge" in the polls, it seems that everyone (and their dog) can't wait to jump in and tell Obama how's he screwing this thing up. For example, the politically adept Arianna Huffington recently stated that it's time for Obama to find his inner anger. Here's a quote ...

To fully become the transformational leader we need, Obama must demonstrate to the American people his capacity for indignation -- for the kind of ferocious passion that fueled King and Nelson Mandela. He has to fight fire with fire, and wield anger in the service of what right, true, and good. The fierce urgency of now demands nothing less.

Likewise, the self-described apolitical Thomas L. Friedman felt the need to get in the conversation this time around and give Obama some tips about changing his calm temperament ...

I confess, I watch politics from afar, but here’s what I’ve been feeling for a while: Whoever slipped that Valium into Barack Obama’s coffee needs to be found and arrested by the Democrats because Obama has gone from cool to cold.

This is just two high profile examples, but let's not forget about the countless other posts on the blogasphere with a similar theme. Here's a quote from one of my recent favorites ...

Is Obama now going to let himself get moosed by a parochial Alaskan know-nothing because she's a woman? ... Time to get mad. At Palin. At McCain. At the Bushes (yes both of them) ...

... Your move, Senator Obama.

Of course, for every Huffington and Friedman, you'll find others who are telling Obama that he must be very careful not to come off as an "angry black man" (Oh, the horror!). So, what's the poor guy to do?

In the past two presidential elections, I'll admit that I was complaining as loudly as anyone about the missteps of the DemocratIC candidates. Like many others in 2000, I would constantly ask why Gore wasn't showing any genuine emotion. I mean, do you think the Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize winning Gore of today would have lost to Bush? And in 2004, I kept yelling at Kerry to vigorously defend himself against the swiftboat attackers. Think of how different it might have been had Kerry come out swinging after those ads instead of wind surfing.

Well, you know what? ... I'm not playing the Democratic blame game this time. With the exception of some minor cases where Obama might have zigged instead of zagged, I'm not seeing how Barack has done anything horribly wrong to this point. So, I have a new philosophy for this election ...

If -- after the last 8 dark years of Bush destroying the world -- the American people would actually elect a clueless, Republican, neocon, war hawk simply because he plucked an inexperienced, Republican, neocon, good looking, Super-Christian, wolf hunter out of obscurity and stuck her in front of the cameras to distract them from the real important issues of our day, then America gets the leaders it deserves! And if the "liberal media" once again lets Republicans say and do whatever they want while (at the same time) micro analyzing the Democrats, then Obama probably never had a chance in the first place. Therefore, when President Palin finishes Bush's job of driving the country into the ground, I will not be blaming Obama this time around; I will be blaming us.

If you want another piece of unsolicited advice, Senator Obama, then here's mine ... Just keep doing your thing, brother, and I'll be proud to stand behind you.

Your move, America.

John McCain will Raise Your Taxes

well, unless you're a zillionaire, of course....

From the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution):

"Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise."

Heck, even the conservative Business Week admits that Obama's plan will benefit the middle class far more, and, unlike McCain and Bush's plans, will pay for itself rather than leave us further in debt.

Here's a Washington Post article with a graph that makes it pretty clear how both plans will work and who gets the beneifts.

Now, lest you feel sorry for those poor zillionaires who will have their taxes raised (or think you're going to become one of them in the next 4-8 years), here's some facts:

- Right now capital gains are taxed at a maxiumum of 15 percent. So if you work hard and bring home a paycheck, you get hit with 25 or 30 percent, but if you sit around while your money makes you more money, you pay only 15. There's no reason that income shouldn't be taxed the same. This will account for a lot of the "increase" on the wealthy (while the rest involves closing tax loopholes that let US companies "operate" overseas and avoid paying income tax altogether, which is flat-out wrong and un-American).

- I say "increase" because the top tax rate has actually been falling steadily through the last century. Fifty years ago, the top earners paid a whopping NINETY percent in taxes. Reagan & Bush The First dropped it from 70 way down to 31, which also accounts for a lot of the debt they racked up. So it's not unreasonable to bump it back up to 39, which, incidentally, is where Clinton raised it to in 1993, and he not only paid down the debt and left us a surplus, but we had the biggest growth of our economy in decades.

As for how McCain will actually raise your or my taxes, it's pretty sneaky -- he wants to tax employer-provided health care benefits. (and give a credit that's a fraction of the average cost for most families). So if you get wonderful, inexpensive health care coverage through your job, prepare to be stung.

And lest you think that McCain's plan might somehow make health care less expensive overall, this Economic Policy institute analysis shows that Obama's plan will cover a far greater number of people for less money. Crazy!

Them's the facts. If you read or see or hear differently, consider who's talking to you, and how much money they make.

TIME FOR SOME MORE VACATIONING

Well, soon I'll be off to one of my favorite things in the whole world: The San Diego Comic-Con! If you're in town that week, keep a look out for me ... I'll be the nerdy one with the superhero t-shirt.

And should you need a politics fix while I'm gone, I'm sure there will be plenty of campaigning ...