Apology for Yesterday and Politics
I found out that much of what I said yesterday was very incorrect and I am sorry. I don't want to delete it because I want to preserve the integrity of my journal and show my mistakes and family mistakes as well as positive things. Aunt Debbie was not at all to blame for either what happened, what she allegedly said - which she didn't etc. Aunt Cathy also it appears did not act in any intentionally malicious way but rather it was a series of mis-communications and assumptions and not giving the 100% truth at the time and therefore it was twisted and warped and turned into a super horrible version of the game "telephone." What actually happened is NOTHING like what was alleged to have happened. Again, I am sorry for venting and in a way gossiping about things which I did not have all of the facts on, even if it was just in my journal.
So now I am in a political mood. After watching Glenn Beck and Showbiz Tonight I have to get a few things out.
CRITICISMS OF SARAH PALIN AND FAMILY THAT I DISAGREE WITH:
1. P.Diddy IS in fact dumber than a box of rocks. He gives a new and unfortunate level to the meaning of stupidity and...wow there isn't even a word to describe him. He posted a video blog about how he disagreed with John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate because (paraphrasing but this was his point) if McCain were to die, would Sarah coming from ALASKA, be ready to lead? First of all, since when does coming from one of any of the 50 states disqualify somebody from running for vice president? I thought we were ALL part of the country. Second of all, does any Obama supporter SERIOUSLY want to get into a debate of qualifications and experience? Really? You may want to re-think this move. I'm not saying a lack of experience makes somebody a bad leader because some people will be good anyway. However, if Diddy is going to use THAT against her...you may want to reconsider your support of Obama. Just saying. Then he kept saying "Alaska? What the? They don't even have black people. No crackheads. No crime. etc." WHAT THE HELL does that even have to do with her being qualified or a responsible VP choice or not?! Really?! And aside from the absolute stupidity of the question, it's completely FALSE anyway. There IS crime in Alaska and there ARE black people. Me thinks that Diddy is not qualified to speak on such matters and it is highly irresponsible of HIM to open his mouth and make such an ass out of himself. Although, it was extremely enlightening to who he really is and how much I really dislike him and sort of entertaining in a very sad way that it was being given ANY publicity or credence whatsoever. By the way - when does not being around black people disqualify somebody for a job? Ever? I didn't know that in order to qualify for VP you HAD to be around black people. Interesting opinion Diddy. How about it just shouldn't MATTER. We're Americans. Period. Now shut up and do your candidate a huge favor - don't open your mouth ever again until this campaign is over. You're not doing him any good. Or yourself for that matter. You are just making it clear that some VERY stupid, ridiculous, and insanely ignorant people are supporting him.
2. Lindsay Lohan needs to realize that Sarah did NOT make her daughter's pregnancy an issue. THE MEDIA DID. The Palin's wanted to keep it private as much as possible but soon found that impossible. So stop criticizing her for talking about that instead of "world issues." Instead, you should be criticizing the tabloids and the media and the blogs that got whiff of this story and ran full speed ahead with it instead of focusing on the real issues of the campaign. I would whole-heartedly agree with you on that one.
3. Jane Valez-Mitchell has me torn. On the one hand it is SO clear from when she has been interviewed that she is supporting Obama or at the very least is anti McCain. She has gone off about Sarah Palin several times even when her rant no longer in any way connects to the question which was asked. It's like she tries to discredit her as much as possible in one answer even if it gets off topic. However, when another person chimed in respectively to correct her and said "Can I say something?" she was very willing to stop and listen. Then when she tried to cut in again and the person asked to be able to make her point since Jane had already made hers, Jane immediately stopped talking and acted interested in listening again. So even though she is clearly biased when being interviewed, at least she is somebody who seems capable of interesting and respectful debate instead of drowning out and overpowering all other voices. So I respect that.
4. However, that aside, I basically disagreed with everything she said. She was in essence saying that by the McCain/Palin camp trying to keep her daughter's teen pregnancy a private matter and keeping it from the American public that it shows poor judgment, secrecy, gives us reason to not trust them and wonder what else they are hiding etc. While I see the general point I disagree in this case. Her daughter, while she may be in the spotlight now as is any family member of a politician, she is a private citizen. It is her DAUGHTER'S and the FAMILY'S business and nobody else's. It might have been naive to think that they could keep it a secret for any length of time with today's 24/7 media but to HOPE for it and to TRY for it was not in any way malicious or inappropriate. The American public does not deserve to know EVERYTHING about EVERY private citizen, which her daughter is.
5. She also said that by "parading" her family out there like a tool or a prop she was essentially saying that they were the reason she was a good candidate for the position, her great family, yet then we find out that her family isn't so great after all. Every politician has his or her family with them ESPECIALLY at a major time such as nomination, swearing in, etc. but I am sure that not every politician's family is picture perfect. Some are just better at hiding their secrets or they have secrets that are easier to keep private. So I don't think that she was using her family to boost her any more than ANY other politician does, Democrat or Republican. Her family probably wanted to be there to show their love and support. I don't see it as her using them to boost her image and then getting discredited.
6. Jane also asked why she didn't announce her daughter's pregnancy when speaking if she truly wasn't ashamed or trying to hide it out of fear of a negative reaction. This question was just ridiculous. I wanted to have respect for her, but seriously? THIS is what you think would have been think should have happened. How about because first, announcing personal family issues was NOT the point of her speaking and what was going on. Second of all, it is her DAUGHTER'S pregnancy, not hers! If my mom was running for political office and got up and said "Hey, just to clear the air and get it out, my unwed daughter is expecting a child! Isn't that great!" I would be PISSED. It's not her mom's business to announce it to the media or to the world. It's her daughter's. And her daughter isn't the one running and thus the one to require to be held accountable for every question or piece of "we want to know" information. SARAH is running.
7. I've heard Bristol Palin compared to Jamie Lynn Spears. That is also just ridiculous. While some say it is glamorizing teen pregnancy, and they are being irresponsible role models...there is one HUGE difference. Jamie Lynn CHOSE the spotlight. She wanted it. It was her job. Bristol fell into the spotlight because of her MOM. It was never her choice or something she pursued. Big difference. It may still unfortunately put a positive spin on teen pregnancy but Jamie Lynn was already in a self chosen public image role when she got pregnant. Bristol wasn't. She was a normal 17 year old girl not expecting or probably even wanting this kind of scrutiny or attention. She was responsible for her own life, not for millions of teenagers who watched her show and loved her.
8. Then I've heard "Can she do it? What about her pregnant daughter and special needs baby? How will she manage it?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME. The liberal feminists love to jump down ANYONE'S throat who dares to suggest that women can't or shouldn't try to do it all. They have fought for YEARS for equality and all of this and yet when it's a Republican female they come out with THIS?! Double standard hypocrisy much? Joe Biden (the Democratic VP pick in case people have forgotten already) was sworn into public office after his first wife had died, leaving him the single father of two boys. Was HE asked if he would be able to manage? Or if he would end up neglecting his children by serving in a public office? Either we have lower standards of men when it comes to children or we only doubt a woman's ability to manage it all and either one is INSANE from the left considering how hard they have fought for equality for women. Hillary scoffed at the idea of being a "stay at home mom." When asked why she went back to work after Chelsea was born she had a very infamous quote, "What was I supposed to do? Stay home and bake cookies?" or something to that effect. So her choice of going to work is a liberal feminist leader but Sarah Palin can't do it or shouldn't try? It's irresponsible of her? Yeah whatever. Think about that before you say such things. Her family seems very helpful and supportive as well...so yeah, aside from it being a hypocritical and insane thing to suggest, I doubt that it is even an issue at all.
9. It pisses me the hell off because if this were a democratic VP pick the media would be FAWNING over her. "She's breaking through a glass ceiling!" "Historic election possibilities!" "She's a role model! An amazing woman etc." Yet a Republican woman is being given the third degree by the mainstream media and is being torn to shreds and they are racing to discredit her in ANY way possible. If we were doing this with a democrat...wait, let me back up. If we question Obama on ANYTHING, policy included, we're racists or bigots or scared etc. If we were questioning a democratic female we would be labeled misogynists, sexists, old fashioned etc. Yet it's only okay to be politically incorrect and question a woman's ability when that female is conservative, right? Okay, got it now! Memo received. Now shove it.
10. People were saying "Well you know, the conservatives started this family being public business thing. They went after Michelle!" To Obama's credit, when asked about the daughter's pregnancy or something relating to it he said "Families are off limits." However. There is a HUGE difference between Michelle Obama being attacked or questioned and Bristol Palin getting the same level of scrutiny. Bristol is NOT campaigning for ANY public office. Michelle Obama IS campaigning to be first lady. That is a public office and has a fair amount of power and clout and influence. Therefore her actions, words, opinions, etc. do matter more than Bristol's personal choices and we should have a right to be concerned over the image that she as a First Lady would portray. Secondly when Michelle was REALLY gone after it was after comments that she made while campaigning for her husband and in several cases was referring directly to who he would be as a president. She was commenting or explaining his potential presidential policies. That makes her - or at least what she said - perfectly fair and legitimate game to be scrutinized. On the other hand Bristol is 17, a minor, not speaking on behalf of her mother's political positions, is only in the public eye as a family member rather than as an active participant in the campaign, and this isn't even a political matter but a private one. HUGE differences.
11. She was criticized by one woman for putting her teenage daughter in the position of possibly being the campaign's reason for failing and how that would mess with a young girl's head. This could be true but is also easily criticized on several counts. It's a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" position. If she had refused to get into the VP position so as to protect her daughter - would that not mess with her daughter's head? To know that your mom had the opportunity of a lifetime and turned it down because of YOUR mistake or choice? That she could have "shattered a glass ceiling" and made history but didn't because of you? How bad would her daughter have felt then? I seriously doubt that her daughter would want to live with the knowledge that SHE held her mom back from something like this. Second of all, Sarah Palin probably discussed this opportunity with her family, especially knowing the issues they were already dealing with at the time, and I doubt would have accepted the position without her family's support. If her family did have a voice and supported her, it is not fair now to hold that against Sarah, assuming that they all supported it. It might have appeared to her daughter that Sarah was more ashamed of her if she had refused it than the fact that she accepted it and put her daughter into a position of possibly being a campaign weakness. But she would have potentially felt responsible for holding her mom back and causing her to fail EITHER way. At least this way her mom has a chance.
12. While in the past I have resisted against saying for sure that the media is biased, I can't help but to see it here now. It took SO long for the media dig up the dirt on Obama's pastor and on John Edward's affair and yet within FIVE days they are searching everywhere for dirt on the Palin's? Not just the pregnancy but a video where she is talking about the troops and supporting them and praying for them - which in my book isn't even scandalous like it is being portrayed as. I consider it a good thing that she would dare say "Pray for our troops etc." It seems that there is a ridiculous double standard there.
13. Many people are citing her lack of experience. From what I have heard and read she either has only SLIGHTLY less experience than Obama (less than a year's difference) or is more experienced. There's also a lot of fuss that she has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. Okay. First of all, we'll assume that she is less experienced than Obama. So she is a little less experienced and it is super important because she is "one very probable heartbeat away from the presidency" while Barrack, if elected, would be ZERO heartbeats away and with only a LITTLE more experience. I don't think it's a smart issue for the pro-Obama people to compare on. If she did become president at any point for whatever reason she would most likely by that point have MORE experience going into it than Barrack would on his first day of the presidency. Secondly, her experience is in good areas. I think that Governors are more qualified as presidential candidates than Senators. While Senators may be exposed to some issues and do gain valuable experience from the job which I believe may HELP them in the presidential office, Governors basically manage a miniature government of their own. They deal with balancing budgets etc. and gain just as much if not MORE knowledge as any Senator on how to be an effective, smart, and capable leader. Third, about her not having foreign policy experience, I don't believe that Obama has any or much to speak of either. People were saying that Joe Biden was good for him because he does supposedly have the foreign policy experience that Barrack lacks. So - if I understand correctly - it is A OKAY for one presidential candidate to suck on foreign policy and therefore get a VP who will make up for his lacking yet it isn't okay for another presidential candidate to have the foreign policy credentials himself and get a VP who has other strengths but may be weak on that one? I would prefer the president himself to be the one with the experience seeing as how he makes the final decision...thanks! If her lack of experience matters SO much because of the risk with McCain's age that she may at some point take over the presidency, than shouldn't Obama's matter a hell of lot more since he would be the one swearing into office ORIGINALLY?
14. I found it hilarious that when being interviewed about Palin, Obama kept saying things like she was a mayor of a small town with population whatever...Hm. That would be like saying that HIS experience was as a community organizer, or a professor, or whatever. That isn't even her current job. It was one of her OLD jobs. They both have more current and more qualifying jobs for the election at hand now. And personally, if we were going to compare on old-job basis, I would rather have a former mayor than a former professor or community organizer. Same reason I prefer governors. I honestly think that their experience, or lack thereof, is about equal when honestly looked at, just in different areas. He may have more years on her experience-wise but I think that her areas are more qualifying in the end. And this is on a President-Vice President comparison which makes it look even WORSE for Obama.
15. Regardless of the mistakes of her family it isn't about being perfect or having the perfect family. Nobody is. Nobody does. It's about how you OVERCOME those mistakes. I believe that her and her family have shown that they can and will overcome mistakes etc.
16. Just for the record, I would rather have a VP who, when her daughter gets pregnant, says that she will have the baby and MARRY the father, than one who says that he supports abortion because if his daughter does slip up and get pregnant, he doesn't want her "punished" with a baby. One shows personal responsibility and making the best out of a bad situation and respect for human life. One shows mentality of bailing somebody out when they screw up so that they don't have to live with consequences and letting the baby - or anyone else - suffer the consequences of their actions instead.
17. Palin was criticized for "slamming" Obama in her RNC speech. Yet the speeches that I heard from the DNC were constantly slamming the Republicans. It's okay and inspiring when D's slam R's, but offensive when it's the R's slamming the D's? No. Wrong. Ideally it is wrong EITHER way. But knowing that it is politics, let's at least be honest. It happens and DID happen on BOTH sides. Period. You know, this is what turned me off to Obama in the first place. In the primaries I thought "This really is a good, nice guy. I disagree on POLICY, but I like his optimism, his bipartisanship, his willingness to listen to everyone and then decide, his ability to inspire, his desire to clean out Washington and get rid of the lobbyists and corruption." But then I realized that he couldn't stand criticism and that he tried in every way to be untouchable to any of it. If you said something about him - even his policies - that was what he deemed too negative then you being divisive and the same ol' Washington politics. You couldn't touch him or his family or his friends on ANYTHING including anything that THEY had said. That's when I realized that he's not a different politician trying to clean things up but rather he is the ultimate politician who's just found a damn good way to play the game. What really hacks me off now though is that he is just as divisive and slimy but only in more subtle ways. Or if he does offend somebody and actually catches flak for it he immediately backtracks and says "Oh, that wasn't what I meant. I misspoke." Really? He's only saying that so that he doesn't lose any votes. Otherwise he wouldn't be saying so. He twists and manipulates and takes things out of context for his ads just like any other politician out there (FactCheck.org...beautiful thing in today's media). But at least you expect it with them. With him you're thinking "He's different. He wouldn't do that. He's changing politics." Too bad he really isn't. He's not being divisive or slimy in as harsh or outright terms but a subtle bash is just as much of one and the intention to discredit and smear the other one and make yourself look better is the same. I would even say it's worse to CLAIM that you're different and then do that that to just play it out as usual where we expect it and know it's coming. Also, since when is he the ultimate authority on when something is divisive or not? He's said that some things were divisive and off limits when honestly - they were real issues. You can't shut the other side up by saying "Shhh, you're dividing us!" anytime that you don't like what they're saying about you. If you can't stand the fire, get the hell out of the kitchen.
18. Just as an additional note I really wish that Showbiz Tonight would just cover stupid celebrity entertainment and STAY OUT of politics. Sometimes I just want stupid, easy, fun entertainment. I don't want to get worked up over politics or what celebrities are saying about them...especially celebrities who know NOTHING about them. I just want to relax and watch non important crap that I'm not supposed to need to think about or get ticked off over.
CRITICISMS OF SARAH PALIN AND FAMILY THAT I AGREE WITH:
1. Somebody brought up the point that Sarah supports abstinence only sex education in school, thinks that it should be the parents responsibility, doesn't support handing out condoms etc. and wanted to know how her daughter getting pregnant lined up with her stances on such things. They believed that it was reflective of the "fact" that her stances were incorrect and did not work to reduce teen pregnancy. I actually do see this point and am not sure that I agree with SOME of these positions. That said, sometimes kids are stupid. We don't know that she never taught her daughter about birth control or made it available to her. We don't have any proof that her daughter did or didn't have that information from her mom or elsewhere. Even if she did, there is a chance that her and her boyfriend either CHOSE not to use it or if didn't function as expected etc. That doesn't necessarily discredit Sarah's positions, but could mean that some teens will end up pregnant either way because they make choices that lead to that risk. However I can see it as a valid concern if you disagree with her positions on such matters. It's at least something to TALK about and think of.
2. The only other way that I can see this pregnancy issue mattering is on judgment or track record or something. Conservatives HAVE judged people based on their families etc. claiming that it shows who they are, what kind of person or character they may have so on and so forth. So in that way I think it is FAIR to say "Her daughter getting pregnant may show the kind of parent and/or person she is and if she can handle parenting and a VP position. Or if she hasn't been a good parent, maybe that reflects on the kind of VP she would be." I honestly don't know the answer but I do know that she could be the best parent in the world and her daughter may still have chosen to go astray or go against her parenting wishes and rules etc. Kids will find a way to do so if they want to.
Overall...here are my thoughts on the candidates and this election.
No matter your politics, or who you like, or if you are completely apathetic, this is a historic election. I disagree with his POLICIES but I think it is amazing and a good thing that we have the first opportunity as a country to vote for a black man as president. It shows a lot about how far we have come. Are we perfect? No. But I don't believe we're still nearly as screwed up as some people say that we are as a nation. I also think that it is amazing that we have our first female Republican VP running, and if elected, our first female VP ever of either party. It is an important election that could very well determine the fate of this country. We are facing a lot of big issues right now, and while both candidates have their faults - who we pick will determine which direction this country goes in the future for better or for worse.
As far as the candidates etc.
Obama seems like a nice guy. He seems to be a great husband, father, all around good family guy who tries to do what he thinks is right. I am not knocking him as a person. He does seem like a good man. However...the more I get to KNOW him and his past, the more I dislike him and distrust him as a potential president. His judgment is WAY off. If he can sit in his pastor's church for decades and have the kind of friends that he does, etc. and always say "Well, gee, that's not the person I knew. They seemed to be a good person!" Do you really trust THAT guy to make good calls on foreign policy? I could just see him saying "Well gee...that evil dictator who just massively screwed us SEEMED nice. I thought I could trust him." I really do like his idealism but unfortunately that isn't what we need in today's world with the USA's problems. No matter HOW nice you are to some people (certain foreign leaders included) they will still hate you and will do anything to harm you or overpower you. I also was really liking him because he talked about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle and working together - hearing ALL sides and then coming to a decision. I really liked that. I knew that his policies would still determine most of his decisions, but the thought that he WOULD listen to all sides and compromise was great. Then, I found out that while his rhetoric is all bipartisan, he votes completely party line democratic. Nice in theory...not in action. He also has never truly reached across the aisle except when it didn't require much personal risk or sacrifice. His economic policies are disastrous. We already have a budget deficit, and yet he is talking about adding MORE programs, MORE spending, and MORE taxes to supposedly cover it all. Allegedly not for those making below a certain amount...but that brings me to another thing! The top 10% pay about 70% of all taxes. The top 50% pay 96.4%. If you add in the next 10% you have a system where the top 60% pay ALL of the taxes, because the BOTTOM 40% pay NOTHING. And Barrack is going to RAISE those people's taxes to cover his new programs because they don't "pay their fair share?" Sounds like it! They pay more than it. The government is just addicted to spending their money and does so very irresponsibly. When his wife was attacked for things that she had said and he went to her defense and told the media to back off I had two thoughts. One, I think it shows who he is as a husband. He is a man that will stand by and defend his wife. I think that is a good thing as a man. But as a politician, he was stupid and again, I questioned his judgment. She was campaigning for HIM and in some of what she said was representing who HE would be as a president. Therefore, she, or what she said, was completely fair game to be critical of. It's very simple and I worry if he can not get that. The thing that REALLY turned me off to him though, as a presidential candidate and in some ways as a person, is how "untouchable" he tries to be. You cannot criticize him on ANYTHING without being called "racist" "divisive" "typical politics as usual" etc. It's NOT divisive to say that his policies suck. It's not divisive to criticize something that HE said and talk about what it tells you about him. It's not divisive to question his judgment based on SEVERAL questionable associations he has had. And NONE of that is racist. So shut up PLEASE. That argument is way out of line and sounds very desperate. But he tries to put certain things "off limits" and say that you can't talk about them. Since when does he control the freedom of speech? Since when does he decide the line between fair criticism and when somebody is being unfair and divisive? I realized this when he made the comment about people "clinging" to religion and guns and all that. BTW, that was one of the stupidest things that any politician has ever said. At the next debate, Hilary was talking about it and he said something like "See, politics as usual! I've explained that I misspoke and she just won't let it go." Admitting a mistake, Barrack, does not get you off of the hook for that mistake. And you only admitted that you "misspoke" when you were pummeled verbally after you said it. He tries too hard to be the untouchable one on anything and it got old really quick. I want to be able to question and criticize my politician's when I feel they are out of step with me and have no idea what they are doing or talking about and not have them say "Now hold on! You're just being divisive." And paint ME as the bad guy for calling them out. I also stopped liking him because he is a hypocrite. He is just as untruthful and divisive as any other politician, just in a nicer, more subtle way. I was looking at factcheck.org the other day. His ads have twisted facts, as have others. He gets in his digs, but in more subtle ways. Or even if they are not subtle, I guess it's only okay for HIM to criticize others, he just shouldn't ever be expected to take it back. It's only divisive if it's happening to him. Got it. Not. And I honestly no longer believe that he is a DIFFERENT politician, but rather the ULTIMATE politician. While I believe he thinks that he's got good ideas and a good plan for America, I believe that he is willing to do ANYTHING to put it through and get there including politics as usual or worse...just with a happy face on them. At least with the other guys, you KNOW what to expect and to take everything with a grain of salt. His style is more deceptive because he's claiming to be so different and clean. So overall, nice guy, good family, but SO not somebody that I would vote for.
His wife, Michelle...oh she's great. Actually I can't stand her. I don't care if "family should be off limits" or not. If she can't stand to take the heat for STUPID things that she says, then she has no business campaigning for her husband OR being a first lady of this country. Her comments are also fair game because as a wife, she does hold influence in her husband's life. He had already admitted this. He respects her opinions and thoughts etc. That's great in a marriage. However, if that marriage is going into the White House, we have every right to criticize or be concerned with what her opinions are. They are no longer personal property and off limits if they COULD affect Obama's policy ESPECIALLY once they are spoken in a speech in public. She does seem like a black person with a chip on her shoulder. One who would rather dwell on the past (even people who had nothing to do with it) than move forward from now. Her and Barrack ARE the American Dream. They both went from poverty or not too well off to possibly the next President and First Lady. Even aside from that...they both went to AMAZING schools and have a solid family and do well financially. And I don't care what they think. Her making a six figure income is well off. Not super rich but certainly not dirt poor and as hard pressed as you'd think based on how they talk about things being so hard and just recently paying off their college loans (Um, for Harvard, remember? It's not like you went to a community or state college and it took you that long. You chose to go to a prestigious school which happened to have that price tag. It's a deal YOU chose. Good for you, glad you achieved it, but you can't bitch about it being so expensive when you chose it out of many other cheaper options) and all of that. Yet even after it's in their face, they pulled themselves up, they succeeded, they've made it...they seem to preach that without the government's help from higher taxes for the rich and more programs for the poor - it's hopeless. Don't even bother trying. You NEED the government to succeed. You NEED people to "give up a bigger piece of their pie so that you can have more." How about just baking your own damn pie? The way SHE talks, to me, is very socialist. In this country we are supposed to have equal opportunities. NOT equal outcomes. That was never promised to us. Her comment about "Barrack will never let you go back to not caring. He'll keep you working, keep you involved, etc." It is a RIGHT to be able to not care. It might be stupid. But the president nor government etc. should never be able to FORCE you to work, or care, or be involved. You have a RIGHT not to. However that ALSO means that the government should have the right to say "You don't want to work? You don't get ANY welfare. Not one dime." "You don't want to care? Fine. Whatever." You have a RIGHT to live that way if you choose but you do not have the right to expect hand outs or coddling from the government for CHOOSING to live that way. As far as some saying that socialism is what Jesus stood for "Take care of the hungry, the poor, etc." Yes, he stood for that. On a PERSONAL basis. He did not command the government to do so. He told his followers that THEY should do so. People these days want the government to be in charge of it instead of taking the responsibility on themselves. So anyway...I really am not a fan of Michelle in any way.
In all fairness- I don't love McCain either. I believe that he will be stronger and more realistic on national defense than Obama. He'll probably be better on taxes and spending and doing less of both. Socially he's better but still has issues. I believe he too is a typical politician, just more obvious. Like when he supported the Amnesty bill, which the American people basically said "HELL NO!" to. Then he claimed he had learned his lesson - seal the borders first. Then tackle the illegal immigrants who are already here. Then as soon as he basically had the nomination in his hand he was back to pandering to a crowd of latinos and telling them whatever they wanted to hear. He was either lying to US, the American people, or to THEM. Shouldn't only ONE of those groups matter in an AMERICAN election where supposedly only LEGAL citizens can vote? Hm...So I will be voting for him, not because I am passionate about him, but because I agree with him on a FEW things and he is better than the alternative route for this country. I do admire him as a war hero though and for everything he went through. I might disagree with him on a lot of things, and may dislike him as a politician, but I believe that his actions in Vietnam and choosing to stay there with his men instead of accepting the offer of release says A LOT about the man's character. That is something to be admired and respected no matter what else you may disagree with him on. No, you shouldn't vote for him ONLY on that, but don't ever mock him for it or knock what he did.
Palin I don't know enough about yet but I have not seen anything that I disagree with so far. Maybe she was a bit aggressive in her speech at the RNC but overall I agreed with what she was saying. So I don't have an extremely passionate opinion on her one way or the other yet.
In the end though, both parties drive me nuts. It's all about politics and what will look good on BOTH sides. If one side does something, the other one criticizes it but then will turn around and do the same thing and claim it is different. Arguments on BOTH sides can either be reasonable and tactful and though out or look completely stupid and ignorant and desperate. Both sides need to keep each other in check and be willing to listen and get to the truth. I just have to vote with either what I agree with most and/or what I disagree with least. :-)
So now I am in a political mood. After watching Glenn Beck and Showbiz Tonight I have to get a few things out.
CRITICISMS OF SARAH PALIN AND FAMILY THAT I DISAGREE WITH:
1. P.Diddy IS in fact dumber than a box of rocks. He gives a new and unfortunate level to the meaning of stupidity and...wow there isn't even a word to describe him. He posted a video blog about how he disagreed with John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate because (paraphrasing but this was his point) if McCain were to die, would Sarah coming from ALASKA, be ready to lead? First of all, since when does coming from one of any of the 50 states disqualify somebody from running for vice president? I thought we were ALL part of the country. Second of all, does any Obama supporter SERIOUSLY want to get into a debate of qualifications and experience? Really? You may want to re-think this move. I'm not saying a lack of experience makes somebody a bad leader because some people will be good anyway. However, if Diddy is going to use THAT against her...you may want to reconsider your support of Obama. Just saying. Then he kept saying "Alaska? What the? They don't even have black people. No crackheads. No crime. etc." WHAT THE HELL does that even have to do with her being qualified or a responsible VP choice or not?! Really?! And aside from the absolute stupidity of the question, it's completely FALSE anyway. There IS crime in Alaska and there ARE black people. Me thinks that Diddy is not qualified to speak on such matters and it is highly irresponsible of HIM to open his mouth and make such an ass out of himself. Although, it was extremely enlightening to who he really is and how much I really dislike him and sort of entertaining in a very sad way that it was being given ANY publicity or credence whatsoever. By the way - when does not being around black people disqualify somebody for a job? Ever? I didn't know that in order to qualify for VP you HAD to be around black people. Interesting opinion Diddy. How about it just shouldn't MATTER. We're Americans. Period. Now shut up and do your candidate a huge favor - don't open your mouth ever again until this campaign is over. You're not doing him any good. Or yourself for that matter. You are just making it clear that some VERY stupid, ridiculous, and insanely ignorant people are supporting him.
2. Lindsay Lohan needs to realize that Sarah did NOT make her daughter's pregnancy an issue. THE MEDIA DID. The Palin's wanted to keep it private as much as possible but soon found that impossible. So stop criticizing her for talking about that instead of "world issues." Instead, you should be criticizing the tabloids and the media and the blogs that got whiff of this story and ran full speed ahead with it instead of focusing on the real issues of the campaign. I would whole-heartedly agree with you on that one.
3. Jane Valez-Mitchell has me torn. On the one hand it is SO clear from when she has been interviewed that she is supporting Obama or at the very least is anti McCain. She has gone off about Sarah Palin several times even when her rant no longer in any way connects to the question which was asked. It's like she tries to discredit her as much as possible in one answer even if it gets off topic. However, when another person chimed in respectively to correct her and said "Can I say something?" she was very willing to stop and listen. Then when she tried to cut in again and the person asked to be able to make her point since Jane had already made hers, Jane immediately stopped talking and acted interested in listening again. So even though she is clearly biased when being interviewed, at least she is somebody who seems capable of interesting and respectful debate instead of drowning out and overpowering all other voices. So I respect that.
4. However, that aside, I basically disagreed with everything she said. She was in essence saying that by the McCain/Palin camp trying to keep her daughter's teen pregnancy a private matter and keeping it from the American public that it shows poor judgment, secrecy, gives us reason to not trust them and wonder what else they are hiding etc. While I see the general point I disagree in this case. Her daughter, while she may be in the spotlight now as is any family member of a politician, she is a private citizen. It is her DAUGHTER'S and the FAMILY'S business and nobody else's. It might have been naive to think that they could keep it a secret for any length of time with today's 24/7 media but to HOPE for it and to TRY for it was not in any way malicious or inappropriate. The American public does not deserve to know EVERYTHING about EVERY private citizen, which her daughter is.
5. She also said that by "parading" her family out there like a tool or a prop she was essentially saying that they were the reason she was a good candidate for the position, her great family, yet then we find out that her family isn't so great after all. Every politician has his or her family with them ESPECIALLY at a major time such as nomination, swearing in, etc. but I am sure that not every politician's family is picture perfect. Some are just better at hiding their secrets or they have secrets that are easier to keep private. So I don't think that she was using her family to boost her any more than ANY other politician does, Democrat or Republican. Her family probably wanted to be there to show their love and support. I don't see it as her using them to boost her image and then getting discredited.
6. Jane also asked why she didn't announce her daughter's pregnancy when speaking if she truly wasn't ashamed or trying to hide it out of fear of a negative reaction. This question was just ridiculous. I wanted to have respect for her, but seriously? THIS is what you think would have been think should have happened. How about because first, announcing personal family issues was NOT the point of her speaking and what was going on. Second of all, it is her DAUGHTER'S pregnancy, not hers! If my mom was running for political office and got up and said "Hey, just to clear the air and get it out, my unwed daughter is expecting a child! Isn't that great!" I would be PISSED. It's not her mom's business to announce it to the media or to the world. It's her daughter's. And her daughter isn't the one running and thus the one to require to be held accountable for every question or piece of "we want to know" information. SARAH is running.
7. I've heard Bristol Palin compared to Jamie Lynn Spears. That is also just ridiculous. While some say it is glamorizing teen pregnancy, and they are being irresponsible role models...there is one HUGE difference. Jamie Lynn CHOSE the spotlight. She wanted it. It was her job. Bristol fell into the spotlight because of her MOM. It was never her choice or something she pursued. Big difference. It may still unfortunately put a positive spin on teen pregnancy but Jamie Lynn was already in a self chosen public image role when she got pregnant. Bristol wasn't. She was a normal 17 year old girl not expecting or probably even wanting this kind of scrutiny or attention. She was responsible for her own life, not for millions of teenagers who watched her show and loved her.
8. Then I've heard "Can she do it? What about her pregnant daughter and special needs baby? How will she manage it?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME. The liberal feminists love to jump down ANYONE'S throat who dares to suggest that women can't or shouldn't try to do it all. They have fought for YEARS for equality and all of this and yet when it's a Republican female they come out with THIS?! Double standard hypocrisy much? Joe Biden (the Democratic VP pick in case people have forgotten already) was sworn into public office after his first wife had died, leaving him the single father of two boys. Was HE asked if he would be able to manage? Or if he would end up neglecting his children by serving in a public office? Either we have lower standards of men when it comes to children or we only doubt a woman's ability to manage it all and either one is INSANE from the left considering how hard they have fought for equality for women. Hillary scoffed at the idea of being a "stay at home mom." When asked why she went back to work after Chelsea was born she had a very infamous quote, "What was I supposed to do? Stay home and bake cookies?" or something to that effect. So her choice of going to work is a liberal feminist leader but Sarah Palin can't do it or shouldn't try? It's irresponsible of her? Yeah whatever. Think about that before you say such things. Her family seems very helpful and supportive as well...so yeah, aside from it being a hypocritical and insane thing to suggest, I doubt that it is even an issue at all.
9. It pisses me the hell off because if this were a democratic VP pick the media would be FAWNING over her. "She's breaking through a glass ceiling!" "Historic election possibilities!" "She's a role model! An amazing woman etc." Yet a Republican woman is being given the third degree by the mainstream media and is being torn to shreds and they are racing to discredit her in ANY way possible. If we were doing this with a democrat...wait, let me back up. If we question Obama on ANYTHING, policy included, we're racists or bigots or scared etc. If we were questioning a democratic female we would be labeled misogynists, sexists, old fashioned etc. Yet it's only okay to be politically incorrect and question a woman's ability when that female is conservative, right? Okay, got it now! Memo received. Now shove it.
10. People were saying "Well you know, the conservatives started this family being public business thing. They went after Michelle!" To Obama's credit, when asked about the daughter's pregnancy or something relating to it he said "Families are off limits." However. There is a HUGE difference between Michelle Obama being attacked or questioned and Bristol Palin getting the same level of scrutiny. Bristol is NOT campaigning for ANY public office. Michelle Obama IS campaigning to be first lady. That is a public office and has a fair amount of power and clout and influence. Therefore her actions, words, opinions, etc. do matter more than Bristol's personal choices and we should have a right to be concerned over the image that she as a First Lady would portray. Secondly when Michelle was REALLY gone after it was after comments that she made while campaigning for her husband and in several cases was referring directly to who he would be as a president. She was commenting or explaining his potential presidential policies. That makes her - or at least what she said - perfectly fair and legitimate game to be scrutinized. On the other hand Bristol is 17, a minor, not speaking on behalf of her mother's political positions, is only in the public eye as a family member rather than as an active participant in the campaign, and this isn't even a political matter but a private one. HUGE differences.
11. She was criticized by one woman for putting her teenage daughter in the position of possibly being the campaign's reason for failing and how that would mess with a young girl's head. This could be true but is also easily criticized on several counts. It's a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" position. If she had refused to get into the VP position so as to protect her daughter - would that not mess with her daughter's head? To know that your mom had the opportunity of a lifetime and turned it down because of YOUR mistake or choice? That she could have "shattered a glass ceiling" and made history but didn't because of you? How bad would her daughter have felt then? I seriously doubt that her daughter would want to live with the knowledge that SHE held her mom back from something like this. Second of all, Sarah Palin probably discussed this opportunity with her family, especially knowing the issues they were already dealing with at the time, and I doubt would have accepted the position without her family's support. If her family did have a voice and supported her, it is not fair now to hold that against Sarah, assuming that they all supported it. It might have appeared to her daughter that Sarah was more ashamed of her if she had refused it than the fact that she accepted it and put her daughter into a position of possibly being a campaign weakness. But she would have potentially felt responsible for holding her mom back and causing her to fail EITHER way. At least this way her mom has a chance.
12. While in the past I have resisted against saying for sure that the media is biased, I can't help but to see it here now. It took SO long for the media dig up the dirt on Obama's pastor and on John Edward's affair and yet within FIVE days they are searching everywhere for dirt on the Palin's? Not just the pregnancy but a video where she is talking about the troops and supporting them and praying for them - which in my book isn't even scandalous like it is being portrayed as. I consider it a good thing that she would dare say "Pray for our troops etc." It seems that there is a ridiculous double standard there.
13. Many people are citing her lack of experience. From what I have heard and read she either has only SLIGHTLY less experience than Obama (less than a year's difference) or is more experienced. There's also a lot of fuss that she has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. Okay. First of all, we'll assume that she is less experienced than Obama. So she is a little less experienced and it is super important because she is "one very probable heartbeat away from the presidency" while Barrack, if elected, would be ZERO heartbeats away and with only a LITTLE more experience. I don't think it's a smart issue for the pro-Obama people to compare on. If she did become president at any point for whatever reason she would most likely by that point have MORE experience going into it than Barrack would on his first day of the presidency. Secondly, her experience is in good areas. I think that Governors are more qualified as presidential candidates than Senators. While Senators may be exposed to some issues and do gain valuable experience from the job which I believe may HELP them in the presidential office, Governors basically manage a miniature government of their own. They deal with balancing budgets etc. and gain just as much if not MORE knowledge as any Senator on how to be an effective, smart, and capable leader. Third, about her not having foreign policy experience, I don't believe that Obama has any or much to speak of either. People were saying that Joe Biden was good for him because he does supposedly have the foreign policy experience that Barrack lacks. So - if I understand correctly - it is A OKAY for one presidential candidate to suck on foreign policy and therefore get a VP who will make up for his lacking yet it isn't okay for another presidential candidate to have the foreign policy credentials himself and get a VP who has other strengths but may be weak on that one? I would prefer the president himself to be the one with the experience seeing as how he makes the final decision...thanks! If her lack of experience matters SO much because of the risk with McCain's age that she may at some point take over the presidency, than shouldn't Obama's matter a hell of lot more since he would be the one swearing into office ORIGINALLY?
14. I found it hilarious that when being interviewed about Palin, Obama kept saying things like she was a mayor of a small town with population whatever...Hm. That would be like saying that HIS experience was as a community organizer, or a professor, or whatever. That isn't even her current job. It was one of her OLD jobs. They both have more current and more qualifying jobs for the election at hand now. And personally, if we were going to compare on old-job basis, I would rather have a former mayor than a former professor or community organizer. Same reason I prefer governors. I honestly think that their experience, or lack thereof, is about equal when honestly looked at, just in different areas. He may have more years on her experience-wise but I think that her areas are more qualifying in the end. And this is on a President-Vice President comparison which makes it look even WORSE for Obama.
15. Regardless of the mistakes of her family it isn't about being perfect or having the perfect family. Nobody is. Nobody does. It's about how you OVERCOME those mistakes. I believe that her and her family have shown that they can and will overcome mistakes etc.
16. Just for the record, I would rather have a VP who, when her daughter gets pregnant, says that she will have the baby and MARRY the father, than one who says that he supports abortion because if his daughter does slip up and get pregnant, he doesn't want her "punished" with a baby. One shows personal responsibility and making the best out of a bad situation and respect for human life. One shows mentality of bailing somebody out when they screw up so that they don't have to live with consequences and letting the baby - or anyone else - suffer the consequences of their actions instead.
17. Palin was criticized for "slamming" Obama in her RNC speech. Yet the speeches that I heard from the DNC were constantly slamming the Republicans. It's okay and inspiring when D's slam R's, but offensive when it's the R's slamming the D's? No. Wrong. Ideally it is wrong EITHER way. But knowing that it is politics, let's at least be honest. It happens and DID happen on BOTH sides. Period. You know, this is what turned me off to Obama in the first place. In the primaries I thought "This really is a good, nice guy. I disagree on POLICY, but I like his optimism, his bipartisanship, his willingness to listen to everyone and then decide, his ability to inspire, his desire to clean out Washington and get rid of the lobbyists and corruption." But then I realized that he couldn't stand criticism and that he tried in every way to be untouchable to any of it. If you said something about him - even his policies - that was what he deemed too negative then you being divisive and the same ol' Washington politics. You couldn't touch him or his family or his friends on ANYTHING including anything that THEY had said. That's when I realized that he's not a different politician trying to clean things up but rather he is the ultimate politician who's just found a damn good way to play the game. What really hacks me off now though is that he is just as divisive and slimy but only in more subtle ways. Or if he does offend somebody and actually catches flak for it he immediately backtracks and says "Oh, that wasn't what I meant. I misspoke." Really? He's only saying that so that he doesn't lose any votes. Otherwise he wouldn't be saying so. He twists and manipulates and takes things out of context for his ads just like any other politician out there (FactCheck.org...beautiful thing in today's media). But at least you expect it with them. With him you're thinking "He's different. He wouldn't do that. He's changing politics." Too bad he really isn't. He's not being divisive or slimy in as harsh or outright terms but a subtle bash is just as much of one and the intention to discredit and smear the other one and make yourself look better is the same. I would even say it's worse to CLAIM that you're different and then do that that to just play it out as usual where we expect it and know it's coming. Also, since when is he the ultimate authority on when something is divisive or not? He's said that some things were divisive and off limits when honestly - they were real issues. You can't shut the other side up by saying "Shhh, you're dividing us!" anytime that you don't like what they're saying about you. If you can't stand the fire, get the hell out of the kitchen.
18. Just as an additional note I really wish that Showbiz Tonight would just cover stupid celebrity entertainment and STAY OUT of politics. Sometimes I just want stupid, easy, fun entertainment. I don't want to get worked up over politics or what celebrities are saying about them...especially celebrities who know NOTHING about them. I just want to relax and watch non important crap that I'm not supposed to need to think about or get ticked off over.
CRITICISMS OF SARAH PALIN AND FAMILY THAT I AGREE WITH:
1. Somebody brought up the point that Sarah supports abstinence only sex education in school, thinks that it should be the parents responsibility, doesn't support handing out condoms etc. and wanted to know how her daughter getting pregnant lined up with her stances on such things. They believed that it was reflective of the "fact" that her stances were incorrect and did not work to reduce teen pregnancy. I actually do see this point and am not sure that I agree with SOME of these positions. That said, sometimes kids are stupid. We don't know that she never taught her daughter about birth control or made it available to her. We don't have any proof that her daughter did or didn't have that information from her mom or elsewhere. Even if she did, there is a chance that her and her boyfriend either CHOSE not to use it or if didn't function as expected etc. That doesn't necessarily discredit Sarah's positions, but could mean that some teens will end up pregnant either way because they make choices that lead to that risk. However I can see it as a valid concern if you disagree with her positions on such matters. It's at least something to TALK about and think of.
2. The only other way that I can see this pregnancy issue mattering is on judgment or track record or something. Conservatives HAVE judged people based on their families etc. claiming that it shows who they are, what kind of person or character they may have so on and so forth. So in that way I think it is FAIR to say "Her daughter getting pregnant may show the kind of parent and/or person she is and if she can handle parenting and a VP position. Or if she hasn't been a good parent, maybe that reflects on the kind of VP she would be." I honestly don't know the answer but I do know that she could be the best parent in the world and her daughter may still have chosen to go astray or go against her parenting wishes and rules etc. Kids will find a way to do so if they want to.
Overall...here are my thoughts on the candidates and this election.
No matter your politics, or who you like, or if you are completely apathetic, this is a historic election. I disagree with his POLICIES but I think it is amazing and a good thing that we have the first opportunity as a country to vote for a black man as president. It shows a lot about how far we have come. Are we perfect? No. But I don't believe we're still nearly as screwed up as some people say that we are as a nation. I also think that it is amazing that we have our first female Republican VP running, and if elected, our first female VP ever of either party. It is an important election that could very well determine the fate of this country. We are facing a lot of big issues right now, and while both candidates have their faults - who we pick will determine which direction this country goes in the future for better or for worse.
As far as the candidates etc.
Obama seems like a nice guy. He seems to be a great husband, father, all around good family guy who tries to do what he thinks is right. I am not knocking him as a person. He does seem like a good man. However...the more I get to KNOW him and his past, the more I dislike him and distrust him as a potential president. His judgment is WAY off. If he can sit in his pastor's church for decades and have the kind of friends that he does, etc. and always say "Well, gee, that's not the person I knew. They seemed to be a good person!" Do you really trust THAT guy to make good calls on foreign policy? I could just see him saying "Well gee...that evil dictator who just massively screwed us SEEMED nice. I thought I could trust him." I really do like his idealism but unfortunately that isn't what we need in today's world with the USA's problems. No matter HOW nice you are to some people (certain foreign leaders included) they will still hate you and will do anything to harm you or overpower you. I also was really liking him because he talked about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle and working together - hearing ALL sides and then coming to a decision. I really liked that. I knew that his policies would still determine most of his decisions, but the thought that he WOULD listen to all sides and compromise was great. Then, I found out that while his rhetoric is all bipartisan, he votes completely party line democratic. Nice in theory...not in action. He also has never truly reached across the aisle except when it didn't require much personal risk or sacrifice. His economic policies are disastrous. We already have a budget deficit, and yet he is talking about adding MORE programs, MORE spending, and MORE taxes to supposedly cover it all. Allegedly not for those making below a certain amount...but that brings me to another thing! The top 10% pay about 70% of all taxes. The top 50% pay 96.4%. If you add in the next 10% you have a system where the top 60% pay ALL of the taxes, because the BOTTOM 40% pay NOTHING. And Barrack is going to RAISE those people's taxes to cover his new programs because they don't "pay their fair share?" Sounds like it! They pay more than it. The government is just addicted to spending their money and does so very irresponsibly. When his wife was attacked for things that she had said and he went to her defense and told the media to back off I had two thoughts. One, I think it shows who he is as a husband. He is a man that will stand by and defend his wife. I think that is a good thing as a man. But as a politician, he was stupid and again, I questioned his judgment. She was campaigning for HIM and in some of what she said was representing who HE would be as a president. Therefore, she, or what she said, was completely fair game to be critical of. It's very simple and I worry if he can not get that. The thing that REALLY turned me off to him though, as a presidential candidate and in some ways as a person, is how "untouchable" he tries to be. You cannot criticize him on ANYTHING without being called "racist" "divisive" "typical politics as usual" etc. It's NOT divisive to say that his policies suck. It's not divisive to criticize something that HE said and talk about what it tells you about him. It's not divisive to question his judgment based on SEVERAL questionable associations he has had. And NONE of that is racist. So shut up PLEASE. That argument is way out of line and sounds very desperate. But he tries to put certain things "off limits" and say that you can't talk about them. Since when does he control the freedom of speech? Since when does he decide the line between fair criticism and when somebody is being unfair and divisive? I realized this when he made the comment about people "clinging" to religion and guns and all that. BTW, that was one of the stupidest things that any politician has ever said. At the next debate, Hilary was talking about it and he said something like "See, politics as usual! I've explained that I misspoke and she just won't let it go." Admitting a mistake, Barrack, does not get you off of the hook for that mistake. And you only admitted that you "misspoke" when you were pummeled verbally after you said it. He tries too hard to be the untouchable one on anything and it got old really quick. I want to be able to question and criticize my politician's when I feel they are out of step with me and have no idea what they are doing or talking about and not have them say "Now hold on! You're just being divisive." And paint ME as the bad guy for calling them out. I also stopped liking him because he is a hypocrite. He is just as untruthful and divisive as any other politician, just in a nicer, more subtle way. I was looking at factcheck.org the other day. His ads have twisted facts, as have others. He gets in his digs, but in more subtle ways. Or even if they are not subtle, I guess it's only okay for HIM to criticize others, he just shouldn't ever be expected to take it back. It's only divisive if it's happening to him. Got it. Not. And I honestly no longer believe that he is a DIFFERENT politician, but rather the ULTIMATE politician. While I believe he thinks that he's got good ideas and a good plan for America, I believe that he is willing to do ANYTHING to put it through and get there including politics as usual or worse...just with a happy face on them. At least with the other guys, you KNOW what to expect and to take everything with a grain of salt. His style is more deceptive because he's claiming to be so different and clean. So overall, nice guy, good family, but SO not somebody that I would vote for.
His wife, Michelle...oh she's great. Actually I can't stand her. I don't care if "family should be off limits" or not. If she can't stand to take the heat for STUPID things that she says, then she has no business campaigning for her husband OR being a first lady of this country. Her comments are also fair game because as a wife, she does hold influence in her husband's life. He had already admitted this. He respects her opinions and thoughts etc. That's great in a marriage. However, if that marriage is going into the White House, we have every right to criticize or be concerned with what her opinions are. They are no longer personal property and off limits if they COULD affect Obama's policy ESPECIALLY once they are spoken in a speech in public. She does seem like a black person with a chip on her shoulder. One who would rather dwell on the past (even people who had nothing to do with it) than move forward from now. Her and Barrack ARE the American Dream. They both went from poverty or not too well off to possibly the next President and First Lady. Even aside from that...they both went to AMAZING schools and have a solid family and do well financially. And I don't care what they think. Her making a six figure income is well off. Not super rich but certainly not dirt poor and as hard pressed as you'd think based on how they talk about things being so hard and just recently paying off their college loans (Um, for Harvard, remember? It's not like you went to a community or state college and it took you that long. You chose to go to a prestigious school which happened to have that price tag. It's a deal YOU chose. Good for you, glad you achieved it, but you can't bitch about it being so expensive when you chose it out of many other cheaper options) and all of that. Yet even after it's in their face, they pulled themselves up, they succeeded, they've made it...they seem to preach that without the government's help from higher taxes for the rich and more programs for the poor - it's hopeless. Don't even bother trying. You NEED the government to succeed. You NEED people to "give up a bigger piece of their pie so that you can have more." How about just baking your own damn pie? The way SHE talks, to me, is very socialist. In this country we are supposed to have equal opportunities. NOT equal outcomes. That was never promised to us. Her comment about "Barrack will never let you go back to not caring. He'll keep you working, keep you involved, etc." It is a RIGHT to be able to not care. It might be stupid. But the president nor government etc. should never be able to FORCE you to work, or care, or be involved. You have a RIGHT not to. However that ALSO means that the government should have the right to say "You don't want to work? You don't get ANY welfare. Not one dime." "You don't want to care? Fine. Whatever." You have a RIGHT to live that way if you choose but you do not have the right to expect hand outs or coddling from the government for CHOOSING to live that way. As far as some saying that socialism is what Jesus stood for "Take care of the hungry, the poor, etc." Yes, he stood for that. On a PERSONAL basis. He did not command the government to do so. He told his followers that THEY should do so. People these days want the government to be in charge of it instead of taking the responsibility on themselves. So anyway...I really am not a fan of Michelle in any way.
In all fairness- I don't love McCain either. I believe that he will be stronger and more realistic on national defense than Obama. He'll probably be better on taxes and spending and doing less of both. Socially he's better but still has issues. I believe he too is a typical politician, just more obvious. Like when he supported the Amnesty bill, which the American people basically said "HELL NO!" to. Then he claimed he had learned his lesson - seal the borders first. Then tackle the illegal immigrants who are already here. Then as soon as he basically had the nomination in his hand he was back to pandering to a crowd of latinos and telling them whatever they wanted to hear. He was either lying to US, the American people, or to THEM. Shouldn't only ONE of those groups matter in an AMERICAN election where supposedly only LEGAL citizens can vote? Hm...So I will be voting for him, not because I am passionate about him, but because I agree with him on a FEW things and he is better than the alternative route for this country. I do admire him as a war hero though and for everything he went through. I might disagree with him on a lot of things, and may dislike him as a politician, but I believe that his actions in Vietnam and choosing to stay there with his men instead of accepting the offer of release says A LOT about the man's character. That is something to be admired and respected no matter what else you may disagree with him on. No, you shouldn't vote for him ONLY on that, but don't ever mock him for it or knock what he did.
Palin I don't know enough about yet but I have not seen anything that I disagree with so far. Maybe she was a bit aggressive in her speech at the RNC but overall I agreed with what she was saying. So I don't have an extremely passionate opinion on her one way or the other yet.
In the end though, both parties drive me nuts. It's all about politics and what will look good on BOTH sides. If one side does something, the other one criticizes it but then will turn around and do the same thing and claim it is different. Arguments on BOTH sides can either be reasonable and tactful and though out or look completely stupid and ignorant and desperate. Both sides need to keep each other in check and be willing to listen and get to the truth. I just have to vote with either what I agree with most and/or what I disagree with least. :-)