[ Edited for clarity. ]

If he still hasn’t come through on his major promises after his first two years, or given solid explanations of why he’s changed position, then we can call foul and level charges of hypocrisy. I’ll be right there with you.

But until then let’s be realistic about how much radical change a single person can impose in a few short months–especially during a financial crisis and while running two wars. ::

But there are a few issues that I flatly dislike Obama’s stance on:

1. The Drug War: His flippant dismissal of an honest question about legalization of cannabis was more than disappointing–it was insulting. His choice is the Bush method, evidently: throw more guns at it.
2. Fines for File Sharing: He sided with the RIAA on this one–$150K per song, I understand.
3. Where’s the transparency into bills he promised?
4. Since when is 35-50K troops a pull-out? [Iraq]
5. Nearly every expert agrees that Afghanistan is an impossible task. Why continue on that path?

Look, I get the fact that he can’t just teleport to progress; it’s a gradual process. And I understand that if he were to come out and legalize cannabis overnight he’d probably loose too much political capital. But don’t turn your back on logic. And don’t dismiss the multitudes of people who have honest, intelligent opinions and are responding to YOUR request to hear them.

Doing so looks to people like me like you’re selling out. Don’t do that. Don’t sell out. ::

The argument is that one should never have an abortion, even if the odds of the child having a successful life are extremely low. Why? Because one of those babies might occasionally beat the odds and become President!

Awesome argument. Unfortunately, what follows is that as a man you should never masturbate because one of the sperm you kill could have become the next Einstein. Sure, it’s true, unwanted and uncared-for children sometimes grow up and beat the odds. So what? Lots of kids who grow up being sexually molested go on to become architects; that doesn’t make it a good idea.

The concept is simple: don’t roll the dice when the odds are so far against a new life. Any pain caused to an aborted embryo is infinitesimal compared to the suffering of a child growing up feeling unloved and turning to a life of crime that hurts not only it but the society he lives in.

Clinging to that very small chance of success for such a child is a selfish act on the part of the abortion opposer, as the only thing they lose if the child becomes a criminal is a few dollars for prison costs. But for the child, and the people whose lives they hurt, the pain lasts a lifetime. ::

Many will probably wince at the clearly non-professional look of the images, but I think if we posted some content from other Presidents’ lives during the same time it’d likely be much worse.

Check out the full image over at theonlinephotographer.typepad.com. ::

Many said during the elections that Obama got to where he is because he is black. They were right in one sense, but they confuse the issue.

Obama race helped him much earlier on than most people think. He was lucky to be picked from a crowd of thousands of lesser political figures who needed to be noteworthy or exceptional in some way. Obama was a black man with the same abilities as the others–so he stood out. So on that point those calling him lucky are correct.

What these people miss, however, is that Obama beat out the final candidates because he is a phenomenal candidate. He defeated them through rhetorical brilliance, a powerfully resonating message, and most of all an intelligent approachability that comes from a personality, not a race. Anyone with those tools has good chances to win.

In short, Obama’s race helped him get noticed early on, but his actually winning was a function of his intelligence and character, not his race. He needed something to get him through the initial vetting that doesn’t focus on deeper qualities, and that was, admittedly, his race. But once he was in public view his actual brilliance took him the rest of the way. ::

Oh, but that’s not the best part. He didn’t just say that about him in 2004–he also gave an astounding reason for why he wouldn’t want Cheney as his own vice president.

I don’t know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah.

Guess when he said that. 2004? 2005? 2006?

Nope. 2007, in an interview with Stephen Hayes for his biography of Cheney.

Absolutely amazing. One year ago McCain thinks the best reason not to have Cheney as his vice president is that they have the same strengths.

And this asshat is seriously being considered for President?

Jesus.:

Consider sending this list to people you know who either are, or are considering, voting for McCain. Send the link with this simple question:

If these people and organizations listed below, many of which are life-long capitalists, entrepreneurs and/or conservatives, are voting for Obama, don’t you think you might want to at least find out why?

• Warren Buffet, perhaps the most respected entrepreneur in the world
• Colin Powell, Bush’s former Secretary of State
• The Financial Times, a centrist financial newspaper
• Scott McLellan, Bush’s former press secretary
• The Economist, a respected finance magazine
• Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google
• Paul O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bush
• Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury
• Sarah Palin’s Hometown Newspaper
• Over 35 additional, conservative-leaning newspapers
• Ken Adelman, lifelong republican who campaigned for Goldwater and was hired by Rumsfeld under Nixon
• Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor
• Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley (über-conservative)
• John Adams, Ret. Brigadier General, US Army
• Wayne Gilchrest, republican Congressman from Maryland
• Clifford Alexander, Jr., former Secretary of the Army
• Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy
• Hugh robinson, Ret. Major General
• 2/3 of surveyed members of the American Economic Association
• 80% of the top economists, based on a survey by Economist Magazine
• Larry Pressler, former republican Senator from South Dakota
• Merrill McPeak, Ret. four star General, former Secretary of the Air Force
• F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the Air Force
• Jim Leach, former republican congressman from Iowa
• A massive list of Nobel Laureates
• Lincold Chafee, former republican US Senator from Rhode Island
• Marc Andreessen, Silicon Valley entrepreneur
• Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch
• George Soros, businessman and philanthropist

Here’s my favorite quote on the topic of conservatives voting for Obama. It succinctly captures what seems to be the prevailing sentiment among the legion of conservatives voting for Obama:

How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that’s antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies – this is the difference between venial and mortal sins. — Conservative Activist Larry Hunter

Links

[ Republicans for Obama | republicansforobama.org ]
[ Running List of Obama Endorsements | wikipedia.org ]
[ Science-Sense List of Obama Endorsements | blogspot.com ]
[ Economists for Obama | econ4obama.blogspot.com ]
[ Obama's List of Economic Advisors | econ4obama.blogspot.com ]
[ Top Economists Prefer Obama by 80% | economist.com ]

For donations of $200 or more, 859 military donors gave $335,536 to Obama, while McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors. Among soldiers serving overseas, 134 donors gave $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave $10,665 to McCain.

So, the way I see it the McCain-anites have two options here, and both of them suck:

1. Claim these donors are just voting for the guy that who will end the war–which basically equates to calling them cowards. Or…
2. Admit that the military isn’t as fiercely pro-McCain as they’d like you to believe, and/or that they see something in Obama that they like.

Either way it’s not good for the GOP.:

That’s it. That’s what McCain has at this point–calling Obama a socialist based on his support for the rich “paying a little more”. McCain’s campaign knows they don’t have anything else, so they’re hoping to ride this all the way to the election.

Well, the video I’m about to show you, if effectively circulated, equates to the end of McCain’s campaign. Quite simply, McCain was asked at a town hall meeting in 2000 if it was fair for the rich to pay more in taxes. Here’s what he said:

When you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Zug zug? There’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more? Did John McCain just make Obama’s argument as he presented it to Joe the Plumber? Yes. Yes he did.

He follows it up by saying it shouldn’t be “totally out of proportion”, but that’s consistent with Obama’s plan as well (Obama’s talking about a very small percentage increase on the rich), so he gets absolutely no points there. The bottom line is that the woman in this video accused the concept of a progressive tax policy of being socialist, and John McCain openly refuted it–on video. He essentially made, while being recorded, the exact argument of the Obama campaign.

Please pass this along so we can expose McCain for the flip-flopping career politician he really is. He clearly doesn’t feel as strongly against Obama’s plan as he’s claiming, otherwise he wouldn’t have espoused the same exact view in 2000. And if enough people see this it will cut the final thread of deception-based hope their campaign has.

Dear Obama campaign, please do an official campaign video on this. “John McCain wants you to believe he’s against the rich paying a little more in taxes. Unfortunately he must not have realized he was being recorded in 2000 when he said this: (video quote). Can you trust someone who takes a hard stance against a policy that he himself was supporting just a short while ago? We’ve had enough of this type of politics in Washington.” I implore you to do something like this.

[ Edit: Re-posted (with edits) for Monday circulation. This message just has to get out. ]

You know it’s bad for the Republicans when George Bush’s former Press Secretary goes for Obama. I’m hesitant to be too optimistic, but it’s starting to get pretty close to “gg” at this point.

That’s it. That’s what McCain has at this point. And he’s been trying to ride it all the way to election day.

And it’s also why the following quote, if effectively communicated, equates to the end of McCain’s campaign. Quite simply, McCain was asked at a townhall meeting if it was fair for the rich to pay more in taxes. Here’s was his answer:

When you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Outlandish propaganda, right?. Nope. Here’s the video:

He follows it up by saying it shouldn’t be an outrageous difference (it shouldn’t be totally out of proportion), but that’s consistent with Obama’s plan, so he gets absolutely no points there. The bottom line is that the woman accused the concept of a progressive tax policy of being socialist, and John McCain openly refuted it–on video. He essentially made, while being recorded, the exact argument of the Obama campaign.

Oh, and remember when he said he’s never flip-flopped on an issue? Well, this is just about as blatant as it gets. Pass this along so we can expose McCain for the flip-flopping career politician he really is. If enough people see this it will cut the final thread of deception-based hope their campaign has.

Note to the Obama campaign: Do an actual, professional campaign video on this. And encourage the viral spreading of said video. If you get this message out, it’s game over.

The guy pictured here is Clinton Slagle, and he actually has a confederate flag tattoo on his arm as well. I love when free-thinking prevails over old biases. Talk about putting the “country first”–this image exemplifies the idea.

Lame. Two points here:

• Was Reagan as socialist? No? Ok, well Obama’s tax rate would be about the same (I think it’s even less) than it was under Reagan. Oops.

Obama’s plan will cut taxes as a share of the economy to 18.2% — below the level that prevailed under Ronald Reagan. — Tax Policy Center 9/12/08

• Socialism, if we’re looking for reasons to hate it, is bad because it rewards mediocrity at the expense of the exceptional. This is bad when it’s extreme, e.g. when you take money from the successful middle class and give it to those who sit on their asses and do nothing.
  
  But that’s not a good analogy for what Obama wants to do. We’re talking about taking a very small percent from the VERY rich, and giving it to the middle class who ARE contributing.

Big difference.

One more time: The degree of increased taxes being discussed are lower than Reagan levels, so if Obama is bad on taxes then so was Reagan. Secondly, and most importantly, our middle class is not some lot of losers looking for socialist handouts. No, they’re the base of the country. **They are the very foundation of not only the country’s success, but the success of the rich as well. **

The McCain campaign is counting on people not realizing these things. Get the word out. We can’t let this kind of tripe-thought perpetuate through November 4^th.: