Friends don't let friends pork-barrel

John McCain really really really hates earmarks! Every campaign speech he has given recently, he harangues (actually, I'm not entirely sure what that word means) about how he has and will continue to stop pork barreling. Now, to my less politically savvy (two v's? Really? How flamboyant) friends, earmarks or "pork barreling" is how things in our great nation gets paid for. You know, bringing home the bacon, this little piggy went to market, when pigs fly and the like. When the United States congress pass bills to get things done, they also need money to do these things. Senators and Representatives specifically put earmarks in their bills, and their friend's bills in order to get certain projects in their respective states done. That's why we send them to congress!

Even though his running mate is one of the most greedy earmark requesters in the nation, McCain constantly claims that he and his running mate will veto every single bill with an earmark on it.
Really? How are we supposed to get anything built or done?

For the record: Yes, there are abuses of earmark abuse. It goes on but I wouldn't say it goes on more than the necessary, for example, the now infamous Bridge to Nowhere. This Alaskan town did not need the bridge, even though Sarah Palin really really wanted it. After the bridge became a laughing stock, and a national embarrassment, congress (not Palin) ended the bridge. Gov. Palin still ended up keeping the money they left her though.

In fact, she loves earmarks just as much as John McCain hates them. This year she requested $197 million worth of them this year, and $256 million of them last year. That's about $288 this year, and $376 per capita. FYI that's 10 times as much per capita as the other 48 states request. We're talking big bucks here.


However, earmarks are not all evil. Only when you request unreasonable amounts every year.

John McCain is so against them, here are some of the things that he voted against and opposed and would presumably veto if he were elected POTUS:

Flood-prevention projects in sates like MO and VA.
Drought aid for NV and NM.
Economic development for PA and WV.
Funding for the Florida Everglades and Yellowstone National Park (the only vote against).
Funds for schools.
Funds for bridges and bridge repair.
Funds for military bases.
Funds for disaster relief.
Funds for military housing.
Funds for senior housing (I guess him having seven houses, that vote makes sense).
Funds for renewable energy programs.
Funds for job training.
Funds for health care for veterans.
Funds for services for disabled kids.
(Source: Michael Grunwald of Time Magazine) <---- read!

All of these things are considered to be vital to our lives, economy, infrastructure and our future.
Having John McCain continue to oppose these things would be disastrous.

What to do about Sarah Palin: Nothing

I do believe that Sarah Palin is one of the main reasons that John McCain got such a nice and comfy bounce after his/mostly her's convention. She energized the GOP base and also fired up some independents too.

However, as I told my political science professor two weeks ago, I didn't feel it would last too long.

I said that the newness of her would wear off, and after the excitement of having a hockey mom a heartbeat away from the presidency, people would begin to ask questions.

And did they ever.

There were lots of questions to be asked, and the more people (the media) asked, the less they liked to hear.

Now, the GOP base will not ever be persuaded to stop loving her, but hell, this is the base that LOVED George Bush Jr. So don't expect too much from them.

The things that were uncovered were far and wide, and it soon became clear that the McCain camp was having her tell numerous lies to the public. I don't care how dumb the American electorate is, they don't like being lied to, and they know when it happens(even if it takes a while to find out).

Trooper-gate: The possibly illegal abuse of power she wielded to fire a public official. She had ordered the Public Safety Commissioner to fire her ex-husband in-law and when he refused, he was canned himself.

The Bridge to Nowhere: In speeches she continually gives around the country, she claims that she told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere." The truth came out later however, that she had fully supported and campaigned on the accomplishment of building the Bridge to Nowhere. It wasn't until the national media made the bridge a national embarrassment and after Congress had already slashed the funds in half, did she actually start speaking out about it.
She even kept most of the money and spent it elsewhere. An obvious lie that was discovered thanks to numerous pictures, video and public records.

Library-gate: After Sarah Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla (pop: 7,000 at the time) she confronted the local librarian approximately three times to question whether the librarian would allow Palin to ban certain books. When the librarian objected, she was later fired. It wasn't until public outcry that she was reinstated a few days later.

AIP-gate: This story did not make as big as news as I had thought it would, but Sarah Palin's husband had belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party for about seven (7) years, and Gov. Palin even spoke at their convention this year. The AIP demands secession from the Union, and the founder even said that he would never be buried under the American Flag. He would instead have his followers bury his bones in Alaska after they had succeeded at seceding.

I can see Russia from my house-gate: The dubious claim by the McCain campaign that Palin has foreign relations experience because Alaska is near Russia. Top public officials in Alaska later confirmed that Palin had not direct roll as of her term (1.5 years as governor) with the Alaskan National Guard or relations with Russia.


So the newness wore off mostly and the media is digging deeply into her past, and it makes you think of John McCain's actual judgment. This was obviously just a political pander and a desperate attempt to grab Hillary voters. I am thankful that Hillary supporters have big brains too match their big loyalty.

The polls have suggested what I had guessed would happen two weeks ago, but the question still remains about what the Obama campaign will do about her popularity.


The answer: Nothing. She is not running for president. John McCain is. I am sure that they will stick to the issues and the failed policies that John McCain endorses, and allow Sarah Palin to implode on her own.

Now we just need to educate our electorate!

Girls will be girls.....Unless they take a closer look.

As you have probably read, John McCain has considerably closed the gap between women who say they will vote for him, and those who will vote for Barack Obama. This sudden closing of the gap is due in large part with his selection of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin. Now, John McCain is still considerably behind Barack Obama when it comes to the woman vote, but he is doing a little better than G.W.B. did in 2000, but worse than he did in 2004. Still, the sudden shrinking of the gap comes at a surprise to me, a man.

Most of the women that I have talked to (if you know me, then you know that means a lot of them) are highly insulted that John McCain would think that they would vote for him just because he put a woman on his ticket. Hillary voters especially seem upset and even somewhat disgusted at the notion that Sarah Palin could steal away Billary votes.

Let's get one thing straight, Sarah Palin will never amount to the type of politician or woman that Hillary Clinton is. Yes, I have said negative things about Hillary before, but I have come to realize that she cares deeply about this country, and wants nothing but the best for it. And she also raised the bar quite a bit. She changed the discussion in politics to reflect more upon women, something we have needed to do for decades upon decades.
Sarah Palin also stands in complete contrast of what Hillary Clinton stands up for on women's issues.


Second, John McCain would not support legislation that would ensure that women are paid a fair and equal wage in the workplace.
For example, The Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2007 would have changed the law so that working women all over America could sue their employers for back pay, if they found out that their male equals were receiving higher raises, better pay and better benefits. This act was in response to the Supreme Court's ruling that Lilly Ledbetter could not sue Goodyear Tires for all of the back pay she was owed due to discriminatory pay. Men that held the same position as her, preforming the same work, were making far more than Lilly was when she was an employee at Goodyear. In wasn't until years later, as she neared retirement, that someone left a report in her locker that showed what she had made over the years as compared to her male equals.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and Lilly Lost because the law said that she could only sue up to 180 days after each paycheck. This meant that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Lilly was owed, could not be recovered.

Justice Ginsburg said that this was one of the worst examples of discrimination in U.S. history, and that it was up to Congress to fix it.

In 2007 they aimed to do just that, Rep. George Miller of the House wrote the Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2007, better known as the Fair Pay Act. This act would have amended the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to define a violation to be held in the Act, EVERY TIME there is a pay discrimination. That would mean if a woman didn't find out until years or decades later that she was paid in a discriminatory manner, she could hold the company accountable for their wrong doing.


Long story short, the bill sailed through the house with bipartasin support, but was blocked in the Senate. Only two Senators didn't bother to show up to vote on this important act.

Senator John McCain and Senator Charles Hagel. It was latter said by a McCain aid that he would have voted against it anyway.

How can we vote in a president that doesn't support fair and equal pay in the workplace? A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against women (and I'm not even going to touch Palin's radical stance on abortion).

Tax this you S.O.B.

Republicans also get upset when you prove that there are things we need to support, and when the only way to do that is to cut spending on somethings while raising taxes on other things. This is how things work folks. You need money to pay for things. The money has to come from somewhere. Sorry.

There are things that need to be paid for and there are things that need to be taxes.

When John McCain constantly votes against increased (and much needed funding) for the VA and veterans assistance programs, yet votes for increased funding and prolonged occupation in Iraq, it's embarrassingly hypocritical and immoral.
If we are going to send our troops and fellow citizens into a war zone, where they suffer death and physical and mental injury, we have to be accountable for that. When suicides and PTSD cases start making new records due to the extreme hardships we put them through, we are morally and obligated to take care of them when they come home.

If we have to raise taxes on some people to do this, so be it. George Bush and John McCain; if you can't afford the total costs of war, then don't start one.

If John McCain says that we don't have the money to fund these expensive programs, well then he better go off and get the money asap. And if that means he has to discontinue G.W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and his tax cuts on big business and oil, so be it. Get to it!

My point is there are reasons where you need to stop tax breaks and raise taxes.

If more and more people are being pushed into poverty because wages don't go up, while corporate profits hit new records every quarter, then something needs to be done. When schools and after-school programs are forced to close down, then something needs to be done to help them out. I don't see rich people having problems paying for their cars or houses or boats, but I do see poor and middle class people having problems paying their rent or medical bills. SO obviously something needs to be done. WE, as well as the government have the obligation to serve its people and to help those who need it. Most Republicans don't recognize this, they think that people can help themselves, and that as the top 5% make more and more money, so will everyone else! It will trickle down they say, but it hasn't. They have been promising that as production goes up, so will wages and living conditions while prices go down. They have been saying this for 25 years straight. You know what? They were wrong. Production goes up every year, while wages stay stagnant and meager. It took us nearly 10 years to raise the minimum wage, and costs have gone up right along with profits. We've given them roughly 25 years of this philosophy, especially in the last eight.
Now look at where our economy is headed. They don't deserve four more. We need to change our government to help the people who need help. Not to allow them to cater to business and their owner's wants.

Death to Taxes!

You know that you have just soundly defeated a Republican in an argument when they resort to the following two backlashes.
1) "Fine! Just get ready to be taxed like no other! I might as well mail my whole wallet to Uncle Sam RIGHT NOW! They can have all of it! I mean! Damn! I earned it but they deserve it!
or
2) Well I hope you're ready for a really really really big government then! There will be no stopping them! They'll be so big! We'll have to give them alllllllllll of our money! Why should the rich be punished for being sooooooooo successful? I might as well just send them my wallet right now!


Boom, you know you've won your argument. I learned this the other day when my dad got lost on the fact that the government should increase funding towards programs that help the poor, and again when I argued a friend to the point that super-rich people SHOULD pay more taxes because they are getting too large of a break when compared with the middle class who keeps getting pushed into poverty and debt.

Right away they became angry and upset at the fact that someone (and mind you, it was neither of them or nor will it ever be, I don't care how rich they think they will be someday) would have to pay for social justice and the fact that the government would have to be the one to do it.


Most Republicans think that raising taxes is always a bad thing. That everyone already pays enough taxes and that people should be rewarded for being successful.
However, not everyone pays enough taxes, people like Warren Buffet have come flat out and said that the super rich, like himself, should contribute more to society. This from the man who already gives millions along with his pal Bill Gates to charitable and non-profit organizations. So he is actually living by example. He illustrates the failure of the tax system under the Bush Administration.
In 2001, the Republican philosophy was this: The economy is doing so well, there's no reason to NOT cut taxes, since Bill Clinton had left them a surplus, why not give some of it back to the people? It sounds nice on paper except for the fact that his tax policy then gave more back to the top 1% than it did the rest of the people who paid taxes. Yes, my parents got a nice little rebate check and I'm sure they enjoyed it. We got a new tv and tile in our kitchen and things like that. But Norman B. Richafella across town in Cherry Creek got such a huge tax break, he got a new boat, a new car, a new condo in Hawaii and a whole new kitchen entirely.
The Democrats threw a fit at the thought of this new tax break policy because it didn't take into account what to do if the economy suddenly slowed, which it did. There went our surplus and here came our deficit thanks to a new war on terror.
We are now hugely in debt, our deficit is alarming and something must be done about it, because it is effecting our entire economy. We must tax. We have no choice. You can think George Bush for his lopsided tax breaks for the top 1% and their money consuming industries like big oil and big wal-mart. These industries and millionaires do not and did not need these gigantic tax breaks. it only made their profits higher and perhaps their greed more ferocious. John McCain and Barack Obama will both have to raise taxes, you no longer here John say "No more new taxes, period!" You don't because that was a lie. Barack Obama promises a tax break for 95% of American familes, the problem is, there are a LOT of people in that top 5% who will have their taxes raised.
The difference is whom the tax cuts and raises will benefit and independent tax think tanks from both sides have weighed in, and the middle class will benefit more under Sen. Obama's tax plan, and the rich will benefit more under Sen. McCain's tax plan.

The point is this, taxes must go up, period. That along with a huge slash in government spending (of whom both have not offered to do, again, it's about what the spending will be on, schools and social programs, or military and tax cuts for industries). We have a long way to go, and I encourage you to look at both of their tax policies, because it's going to effect all of us in the long run. You just have to decide who we need to help now, the middle and lower class workers, or the rich and powerful executives who employ them.

We can't go four more years with this lopsided tax break policy, we can't keep going heavily into debt. We can't promise things that we NEED without having the money for them.

Free Campaign Advice

Is your campaign faltering at an alarming rate?

Media won't pay attention to you unless you make a serious gaffe?

Does the whole country realize that you are just more of the same while they all demand change?

Well we have a fool proof plan for you!


Simply do as all Republicans before you, and CHEAT!

Are they killing you with a campaign of Change and Hope?

COPY THEM! It's that simple. You already think the American public is that stupid so why not go for it? Remember when you were a Maverick? Neither do they! So bring it back and say that you are going to change washington!! It worked for the Last Republican nominee right (how did that end up anyway? Oh yeah. Note: Don't bring up how that went for us last time).



John McCain has poor Judgment.

It is evidently clear in his new campaign strategy to claim (and lie) that he and Gov. Palin are the true agents of change. It's insulting to the American Public who actually pay attention to their records and policies (or for Palin's case, lack-there-of).

McCain needed to do something drastic and dramatic to save his campaign, and he did so by selecting one of the most dangerous VP candidates of all time. After running his whole campaign on the whole experience needed platform, does it make sense that he would pick someone as inexperienced as her?? NO! It was merely a political ploy. Yes, she is likable. She's ambitious, successful, and looks exactly like Peggy Hill. However, that does not mean she is anything new, or better for our country. She is more of the same, and even more radically set to the right.
I can not wait for this political pander to backfire on him as soon as the public stops focusing on her "hockey mom" image, and start to see her dangerous policies and inadequate ability to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.


No more of the same!