Obama takes us through the looking glass

I ask you, dear readers, how is this NOT playing the race card?

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

Okay, so, let me get this straight: We can't use B. Hussein Obama's full name because it's offensive. We can't talk about why B. Hussein Obama's name might be thought funny because talking about it is playing the race card.

We can't mention the fact that he's black because that would be racist (even though it's okay for the BHO campaign to call McCain "outdated"). We can't call his preacher into question because that's playing the race card, even though when a preacher McCain isn't formally affiliated with in any way (and whos congregation he never sat in!) endorses McCain he has to immediately renounce the endorsement. We can't talk about BHO's parents or childhood, but we can call McCain's well-documented military service into question.

You know what, I'm tired of this double standard. I'll say it. I'll play the race card:

There will be no affirmative action in this presidential race. BHO is not entitled to special treatment because he happens to be black.

Friends, I call on you to help me call bullshit when the Obama campaign tries to say things like the quote above. Go to his speeches. Heckle him when he says crap like that. Tell your friends. Start a facebook group. No more affirmative action.

Who Are the Blue Dog Democrats?

Leave it to Salon to turn against their own. The link leads to a new article on Salon.com about the Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dogs are sort of the democrat's version of the religious right- they're a group of 50 congressmen and women who don't vote the party line and stand up for conservative values like balancing the budget and border security. The Blue Dog coalition identifies candidates in close races and districts traditionally held by republicans who exemplify the Blue Dog's values and backs them financially so they can compete with their republican challengers. Not suprisingly, with the support of the Blue Dogs these candidates often win.

These guys don't look like your Hyde Park Obama set- their campaign ads feature things like hunting and trucks in an effort to appeal to their constituents as "one of them"- someone with conservative values and blue collar tastes. It's not surprising that voters are responding to candidates that make an effort not to be their all-knowing savior but to be one of their own, looking out for their best interests.

Democrats are outraged that 50 of their guys do the unthinkable- sometimes support the Bush administration. It's interesting to me that in a campaign year that seems to be based on crossing party lines and upsetting the status quo democrats would be expressing such outrage when some of their guys do just that- cross party lines and vote their conscience, not the party line. It might upset some Democrats paradigms to know that we're not kidding when we say America leans more right than it does left. Given a choice between a liberal democrat and a more conservative one, the majority of Americans- those working class folks Obama is having so much trouble with- would pick the conservative one.

I think what these guys are doing is brilliant. If I can't have a republican majority in congress I'll gladly take 50 congressmen and women who are democrat only in name, conservative in spirit.

Obama- Winning the Hearts and Minds Abroad?

This is an editorial from TimesOnline, a major UK newspaper. Read the whole thing, it's hillarious, but here's a little bit:

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

Occasionally a US magazine like GQ might run a mini-feature on how Sarkozy is the most "American" French president (and how that's not true- if he were American he wouldn't dress so well), but we don't generally openly criticize foreign leaders here. And yet, abroad, you'll find things like the Monica brand condoms that were sold when the Clinton debacle went down, the "polluter" quote from Bush at the G-8 summit, and this little gem. Making fun of Americans is world-wide sport, much like we make fun of Canadians. Obama is not going to change this.

As Maureen Dowd points out, no one in America is allowed to make fun of Obama, but it seems they don't have any trouble doing it abroad. He's not even elected yet, but the international media is already not taking him seriously. Somehow I doubt he'd have all that influence abroad the liberals are so crazy about.

Silly Nas, petitions are useless

Rapper Nas recently delivered a petition of over 600,000 signatures to the Fox News headquarters and demanded they "find a solution to hate-mongering before it hits the airwaves". You can read about it and watch a video here.

This is nothing more than a silly publicity stunt (which worked, I'll give him that). Fox News is a company, and honestly it's only obligation is to return a profit to its shareholders and investors. It does this quite well. You can complain about the "terroristic fist jab" all you want, but I, and scores of other viewers, thought it was a funny joke. Fox is obviously biased, and I doubt that anyone who isn't already conservative watches. Lots of people are outraged by their antics all the time, the people who matter- the people who enable the channel to exist by actually, you know, watching it- don't mind. In fact, they think it's funny. I'd even hazard a guess that they LIKE it when Fox makes off-color comments.

I would never give audience to Air America, and I doubt any of their listeners will be tuning into Fox anytime soon. Publicity stunts like this do absolutely nothing but give meaningless press coverage to the attention-hungry people who came up with them. If you really want to hit Fox where it hurts, organize a boycott. It's too bad no one who listens to Nas can have any impact on Fox by continuing to not watch. A petition might get you a better DJ at the school dance, but it isn't hurting Fox's feelings.

Veep Selection: Don't Blow Your Load

I personally am not buying into suggestions that McCain will announce his Veep this week. It offers him absolutely no advantage to do so. Not only would it lead to more snarky Daily Show et. all. pieces on how while Obama is off touring his "birthplace" (being the messiah and all. har har.) McCain is desperately trying to stay in the spotlight at home, it would render useless the one real advantage Republicans have right now:

Our convention is second.

The Democrats' convention is before ours, which means Obama absolutely must select a running mate by the end of Denver. It doesn't make sense for him to announce it before- he's doing a fine job of staying in the media and seems to be able to hold his own in battleground states for now, he doesn't need a Veep pick to get press or bolster support. McCain can wait until after Obama's pick is public, choose a runningmate that will counter Obama's, and still have some time left over before the convention.

I'm not saying McCain should make this most important decision based on who Obama picks (and I hope he doesn't), but I wouldn't put it past Obama to make his Veep an obvious response to McCain's too-early pick. Many undecided voters are saying they can't say for sure whether or not they'd vote McCain until his Veep is announced, and the best strategy would be to pick someone who can help him win this election and counter Obama. We can wait the Dems out on this one, and I see no reason why we wouldn't.

And for the record, increased press coverage only increases the number of innocuous missteps you say on record that get blown way out of proportion. Obama can take a few "hey buddy, you actually DIDN'T have a hand in passing that legislation you just claimed" missteps, McCain can't. He'll fall off a stage or pose with a jeep eventually. We only need to wait.

Hold the phone, Iraq critics

I read Real Clear Politics first thing every day, since it generally does a good job of presenting one or two of the best articles out there on whatever the big topics for the day will be. RCP is generally un-biased, but the articles they link to aren't necessarily so. Here's an example of an excerpt from Politico:

John McCain, who once voiced concerns about Bush and Cheney’s handling of the war, is now unrestrained in his enthusiasm for the indefinite occupation of Iraq.

The article is trying to argue that McCain has become more conservative for a general election audience, which obviously he has (but not nearly to the degree Obama is veering to the center). But this is exactly the kind of backhanded little statement conservatives need to to a better job fighting against.

For those of us who have been following Iraq, we know that Bush/Cheney were botching the hell out of a war that should have been a cakewalk for US troops to win. Of *course* McCain spoke out against their mis-management, anyone who knew anything about the military was speaking out against it. But that doesn't mean his support for the war ever weakened. He was always one of the most vocal supporters of the Iraq war, regardless of calling Bush/Cheney out on their terrible mismanagement.

We also know "indefinite occupation" is misleading. Recall that US troops are technically still occupying Germany, Japan and Korea- countries we haven't been at war with for decades. We do this to offer support to nations still adjusting to post-war life and to help them out should they have any trouble. We also do it for strategic reasons- having troops in South Korea ready to go to battle at any moment is a good plan considering how things are going with North Korea lately. We will probably never need to engage these troops, but it's good to have them there.

Iraq is in the middle of the hotbed of the Middle East. Of COURSE we would keep troops there indefinitely. It doesn't make sense not to. Should anything happen with Iran 5, 10, 15 years from now our troops are right there waiting for it, and in the mean time they're helping the new Iraq security forces keep the newly democratic nation running. It would be stupid of us to spend billions of dollars in Iraq and then leave without having any way to ensure our investment is paying off. We didn't liberate them so they could go back to exactly how things were in 2001.

With a bit of critical thinking we conservatives know the above statement is misleading bullshit, but lots of people see this sort of thing as fact. We really need to do a better job of correcting each and every person who makes statements like this. If we can't call Obama a Muslim then liberals can't say things like this.

NAACP

Today Sen. McCain spoke at the NAACP conference. Despite being polled at only having 4% of the African-American vote, he went to the convention and spoke to these voters anyway. He was respectful and didn't try to pretend he was anything he isn't. Despite knowing there was no possible way they'd be persuaded to vote for him, the crowd was warm, enthusiastic and packed.

From the speech:

Let me begin with a few words about my opponent. Don't tell him I said this, but he is an impressive fellow in many ways. He has inspired a great many Americans, some of whom had wrongly believed that a political campaign could hold no purpose or meaning for them. His success should make Americans, all Americans, proud. Of course, I would prefer his success not continue quite as long as he hopes . . . Senator Obama talks about making history, and he's made quite a bit of it already . . . Whatever the outcome in November, Senator Obama has achieved a great thing -- for himself and for his country -- and I thank him for it.

This is exactly what you should do when in territory that is not traditionally friendly to you. Don't pretend you're anything you're not. McCain isn't pulling up a chair at the local diner and pretending to like fried chicken, he's not sharing a 40-oz in any photo opps and he sure as hell isn't adopting their slang. He's being himself, and it is appreciated.

Most importantly, he's not slamming the voters he just tried to woo behind their back, a la the infamous "clinging to guns and religion" comment. McCain understands that the American people need a leader, not someone who pretends to be just like them.

Obama: "Cool" black man?

It's come to my attention over several conversations with Obama supporters in trying to ferret out exactly what they like about him (since most have no idea what is actual policies are, they just know that he has them and bloggers say they're progressive, but that's a whole 'nother entry) is that he's "cool". I have no objective problems with "cool", though in it's application to Obama and subsequently being a reason to make him leader of America, I have a few bones to pick:

1. Why does the leader of America need to be cool? I understand that politics these days is often a popularity contest and not a debate of ideas with citizens best interests at heart, but this doesn't seem like an important quality for a president to have. I suppose that in being a b-rate movie star Reagan was cool (though by the election he was just old); by today's standards Jimmy Carter's solar power and peanut farming makes him cool to the Whole Foods set (full disclosure: I shop at Whole Foods sometimes. It's a five minute walk from my apartment); Clinton played the saxophone, which is cooler than, say, the flute, but less cool than drums or guitar. But I don't see how any of these things made them better presidents.

2. What's so cool about Obama? As far as I can tell, he's cool because he's black, which seems incredibly racist to me. Does America really assume that being black makes you somehow cooler by default than being white? Isn't that sort of like assuming Obama is good at basketball and likes corn bread? Is this something we're okay with?

3. What advantages will Obama gain by being cool, aside from winning the votes of American hipster kids who wear Che t-shirts and drink organic shade grown coffee? I doubt that leaders in the middle east will be as charmed by him as American seem to be, and that seems to be his main foreign policy strategy. Maybe when he has all those chats over tea with Iran with no pre-conditions they will see that because Obama is cool he doesn't deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth for being a godless westerner. Somehow I doubt that.

Being on the cover of Rolling Stone might be good for the youth vote, but I doubt it's good for our image abroad. I can just see world leaders laughing at silly Americans and their rock star president. God help us.

Human Rights Campaign

I am a donor and member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered lobby group Human Rights Campaign. They aren't the only group I give to, but they were one of the first. For those of you who don't know me IRL (as they say), I'm a broke as a joke 20-year-old college student with a part-time job who isn't getting any money from mom and dad, yet I still find a few extra dollars here and there to give to causes I believe in. I do this not to show off how awesomely philanthropic I am in my blog but because even though I hardly ever agree with the propaganda HRC sends me in the mails I still think the issue is fundamentally important and that it's important to have national groups looking out for these citizens.

This is how modern political activism works. In Washington there are these people called "lobbyists" and it's their job to live in Washington and talk to politicians and look out for the best interests of the people that pay them, usually a special interest group like gun owners or pharmacy companies. These people have a LOT of money. They have enough money to wear fabulous suits and take politicians out for lovely meals to share over table talk of their employer's cause and do all sorts of other things I don't want to think about because I still like to believe politics is more than a money game.

But I know sometimes it isn't. Sometimes legislation goes to the highest bidder, so lobby groups like to make sure they have enough money to at least be competitive with the highest bidder, if not win. It might not be fair, but that's how it works. Protests are certainly the free speech right of every American, but they are largely ineffective. A protest of 40 people outside city hall with "honk for gay marriage" signs is going to be broken up far before it has a chance to be anything more than an eyesore to 90% of the people that see it. A large-scale protest needs money for advertising, materials and legal fees for those who inevitably get arrested. For HRC, that money comes from the millions of people like me who donate. It also provides them with a public record of people who support gay rights- having millions of members is pretty important when you're trying to tell a company that if they don't start giving domestic partner benefits there are 30 million people with economic power who won't shop at their store anymore.

If gay marriage is going to happen in this country, gays and those who support them are going to need to start doing a little bit more about it than complaining about how unfair it is and moving to California (where it will likely be struck down by a marriage amendment in the fall, anyway). Complaining about how it's so unfair that guns have more rights in this country than gays isn't going to change the fact that gun owners out-fundraise gays by an incredible margin. Guns have more rights because gun owners have voted with their dollars time and time again that this is important to them, and so far gay rights activists haven't proven that they are a powerhouse who deserves to be heard in this economy.

Gay rights supporters can not beat groups like the NRA unless they join them. I'd suggest they stop complaining about how unfair this all is and join them. I think it's funny that most of the gays I talk to about gay rights spend an awful lot of time complaining but have not sent HRC their 30$ yet. NRA has millions of members who are proud to carry that membership card. Shouldn't your rights be more important than guns?

The Politics of Looks

Today I excitedly shared the news of being added to The Best Conservative Blogs on the Internet. He didn't know I blogged so I said "Yes, it's pretty new and there aren't that many posts. I think I mainly got added because I'm pretty", to which my friend immediately took offense on my behalf. "Doesn't that bother you? That you're being judged on looks and not merit?" he asked, to which I said:

No, it doesn't.

1. My blog plainly states that I am two things- cute and conservative (or at least that I *think* I'm these things). I don't see any problem with people judging me based on either criteria, as those are the criteria I have selected for judgement, and
2. If I didn't want people to look at me I wouldn't put pictures of myself on the internet. That's internet 101.

I don't think looking the way I do, the way I was born, is any different than any other god-given talent or advantage. I was still pretty even when I shaved my head and had a face full of piercings, so I don't think there's a whole lot I can do to change this fact. If someone chooses to favor me in some way- like read my blog- based on this unchangeable fact I don't see it as being any different than being favored because I'm good at math or have an outgoing personality.

It would be very difficult for an unattractive actor to star in movies, an unattractive singer to get played on MTV, an unattractive politician to get elected. But keep in mind that an incredibly attractive man who can't read well enough to read cue cards isn't going to be on TV anytime soon, either. Looks only get you just so far.

We have the privilege of living in a free market economy. If a consumer wants to spend their money seeing a horrible movie with a really cute actor, that is their choice, just like if you're only reading this post because you think I'm cute it's also your choice. If you want to risk missing an important business call because you hired a secretary who was hot rather than competent it's also your choice. If you pick an ineffective laundry detergent over a better one because the ineffective one had prettier packaging... The list goes on and on.

That's the beauty of a free market- you can make business decisions based on any criteria you want. Even if that criteria is who is the prettiest. It might not be "fair", but the free market isn't regulated based on what's "fair".

Why this flip-flop matters

By now we've all heard countless stories on Obama's decision to opt-out of public campaign financing... And countless conservative attacks for being that most dreaded of things- a "flip-flopper"... And countless explanations from be Obama campaign about how he wants to fix a broken system and his campaign relies on small doners.

I call bullshit.

By agreeing to use public financing for their campaigns the candidates agree to something very important to modern political practice- they agree to an equal playing field. Public financing ensures that both candidates will have the same amount of money to spend on their campaign. This year it's a sum of about 90 million dollars. This system was put into action because somewhere along the lines the party traditionally bad at raising money- the Democrats- called foul on the party traditionally good at raising money- the Republicans- for winning campaigns by sheer ability to spend more money.

You can see evidence of this everywhere. Cindy McCain, though herself very rich, can not spend her own money on her husband's campaign because that would be unfair. She hasn't been able to do this since the first time he ran for senate in Arizona. There are limits on what individual donors can give to a campaign. Special interest groups like the healthcare or tobacco lobbies have near unlimited resources and could easily out spend the other candidate by a huge margin and effectively buy the election.

But that's not how we do things here. The American people don't want to be bought. Obama says his campaign relies on "small donors". Bullshit. Do you think Oprah, who managed to bundle $50,000 for Obama is a "small donor"? Do you think paying $30,000 per plate at a fundraising dinner is a small donation? Do you think he's holding special events for Hillary Clinton's moneymakers so that they'll fork over $2,300 each? Don't kid yourself.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with these fundraising tactics and I know both parties use them. I'm saying that it's BULLSHIT for Obama to pretend he's doing something noble by opting out of the system. He's not. He plans to buy this election by outspending McCain, just like he used to demonize conservatives for doing.