Oh Yeah, I want her to be President...

So one of the great things about our country is that virtually anyone can run for a prominent national office. That's right, anyone, regardless of how unqualified or just down right ignorant they are. This was demonstrated in 2004 when James Hart was placed on the ballot as the Republican candidate for a house seat in the Tennessee 8th district after gaining 78% of the votes in the Republican primary. Mr. Hart's platform espouses his fundamental belief in the debunked and absurd principles of Eugenics. Eugenics advocates believe in selective breading and forced sterilization as a mechanism to purify the white race. Hart is known to show up on the door steps of those in his district wearing a bullet proof vest and brandishing a handgun while shouting "White children need to be protected" (by the way he is running again this year as a write in).

So yes, anyone and I do mean anyone can run for high office in this country. What is disturbing this year is that unlike Mr. Hart who is considered even by the staunchest, right wing, gun-toting, (and even racist) Republicans as a joke, we now have a Republican candidate for the second highest office in the land who seems to have the education and understanding of an elementary school student.

After avoiding the press for several weeks and giving no interviews or press conferences (as of the publication of this post she has still only given two interviews and held no open press conferences...boy I wonder what they are hiding) Governor Sarah Palin sat down with ABC's Charles Gibson to share her thoughts and finally answer some questions. While it is evident that Palin can speak English (evidently we didn't set that standard for our current president), the words that seem to spill ever so quickly from her lips certainly don't convey any great understanding of the world around us. In perhaps the most telling exchange, Palin clearly demonstrated her knowledge of our current foreign policy stance:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His world view. GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Ok, so I am not sure that any further commentary on this is really warranted here, however, I will just for my own amusement (actually my own horror and despair) share just a brief thought.

While it is evident that Gov. Palin clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine is, or that it has been the guiding thought in our foreign policy for the last six years that is not the truly amusing (think scary) thing about her statements. She says that Bush is trying to "rid the world of Islamic extremism". Now, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that we invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq because they posed a imminent threat to the security of our country. Saddam Hussein was barely a Muslim, and by no means and extremist. Instead he was a terrible dictator who killed many of his own people, siphoned wealth from his country, and most importantly to us here in the United States, picked a fight with Bush the elder. It is this simple reason (oh and I hear there might be oil over there) that we have chosen to invade a country, kill countless numbers of civilians, loose thousands of our own sons and daughters, and spend over $400 BILLION in taxpayer dollars. What makes Mrs. Palin's statements even more ridiculous is her insinuation at the end of the exchange that President G Dubya had "legitimate and enough intelligence" to take us to war. What fantasy world are we living in here? This is the same woman who once spoke at her church saying that God supported us going to war.

The day that Palin was announced as the Veep candidate I received over twenty phone calls from friends and family asking who this lady was, and why she had been picked? To this day I still cannot answer those questions. I understand her appeal to glasses wearing soccer moms everywhere. Yes she is one of you, an every woman, who takes care of her family and her home. That is all well and good, but shouldn't we expect a little more? I know many women who are great to their families, who balance careers and children, and who are the better of their husbands in every way (have you all met my wife?). These women show character and poise, but I certainly don't want them running the free world. The leader of our country needs to be knowledgeable, rational, educated, and have that indescribable quality of gravitas. Beyond the war, the millions of wasted dollars, the desecration of our individual liberties, and the explosion of the deficit, perhaps the most damaging legacy of the Bush Presidency will be the fact that he made it okay to be ordinary, okay to be uneducated on the issues, inarticulate in public, and corrupt in seclusion. The bar has now been lowered, we can only hope that one day it will be raised again.

Didn't We Already Win This War???

So as I set watching the Republican National Convention last week I became a bit confused and disoriented. See it seemed that no less than five major speakers at the convention (including McCain, Palin, and Giuliani) utilized the increasingly popular phrase "He wants to end the war; we want to win the war". As this hollow platitude rattled around in my almost hollow head, my vision began to blur and the world around me started to spin. Shortly there after I heard some strange music and I realized that I was in fact a part of one of those cheesy seventies-style television flashbacks. As my vision began to clear and the room stopped spinning, I found myself seated on my old futon in my cramped little third floor walk-up (good thing that in the last five years I have upgraded to a less cramped third floor walk-up). As I frantically sought to regain my bearings and understand how I had been transported back in time, I reached for the USA Today sitting on the floor in front of me. To my astonishment the date read May 1, 2003.

Thinking that perhaps this was some sort of bad dream (or at the very least that the scotch I drank last night was potent stuff), I instinctively reached for the television remote. Perhaps I could find Fox News, or better yet a reputable news channel that could give me some insight into what was happening and how I had been transported back in time. As I flipped through the channels I happened upon the Cable News Network. Right there on the screen in brilliant Technicolor and with real time audio stood George W. Bush, his hair blowing in the gentle breeze onboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. As I listed to the audio emanating from my 19" monitor I began to recognize the remarks...

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.....

In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

As I sat and watched this monumental speech, touting our accomplishment in ridding a nation of an evil dictator and in the process making our country safer (okay so I never really got that part, and even during my transportation back through the space time continuum I am still unsure how invading a country that posed less of a threat to the United States then the Spice Girl Invasion makes us any safer here at home) and advancing freedom throughout the world, (Note to future world leaders: the best way to advance freedom is to invade and occupy another sovereign country and utilize military force to impose democracy) I couldn't help but notice the massive "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner strung along the impressive ship. In the media hype and carefully choreographed presentation I felt a swelling of pride in my chest, the anticipation of hope for the future, and the awe in the great ability of the greatest military power in the world. Just then something strange happened. The world began to contort yet again, my vision becoming increasingly blurry, and before I knew what had happened I was yet again sitting on my couch listening to Rudy Giuliani the oft divorced, morally questionable leader of nothing berate the Democratic Nominee for the Presidency because he took the time to serve as a community organizer.

As I regained my composure following my sitcom style flashback, several questions came to mind: Why do we need to win a war when our mission was already accomplished? What does winning a war versus ending a war even mean? When we win will we get a trophy (maybe a cross between Lord Stanley's Cup and the Lombardi Trophy?) Will we be able to text message in our votes for MVP? Does the winning team get to visit Disney World or have a ticker-tape parade down Broadway?

Wait, we are talking about a war not a sporting event. A war that should have never been fought, and certainly can't be won. We are fighting a war not against a state, but against rogue thugs, religious fanatics, and the same ordinary citizens who we came to "liberate". I am all for supporting a "Victory" in Iraq, but it seems that no one can paint a picture of what that will actually look like. So in lieu of said victory I will be happy to settle for us getting our 140,000 sons, daughters, wives, and husbands back on American soil. I am also good with us saving the $10 billion dollars a month we currently spend in the Iraqi sandbox. Now being that this has already been a long post I will delay my thoughts on how to better spend these funds for a later date...to be continued....

I Like the Negative...

When it comes to politics, and particularly national politics the most potent weapon in the a candidate's arsenal is not the ability to formulate great ideas, it is not an impressive career record or great oratory ability, in fact it is not even name recognition or the unquantifiable "likeability factor". Instead the true political weapon of mass destruction is the ability to paint your opponent in negative terms. We all know what this looks like, from negative campaign ads, to speeches laced with personal attacks, to the "spin squads" filled with visible political allies who work hard to assassinate the character of your opponent. Now all campaigns use this tactic in different ways and with varying degrees of success. So what can we do about it? Can we ever bring about a change to this system? Well, I think it may be difficult and here is why...Many if not most Americans feign disgust and aggravation with this tactic, while at the same time enjoying every tasty morsel of hate laced speech. So, at a minimum we should get credit for feeling guilty about the enjoyment we gain from this public spitting match. It is just like that nasty car wreck that you drive by on your way home, you hate to look, but not only do you slow to a crawl, you stick your head out the window and gawk like professional bird watcher.

Well folks, I am here to tell you to feel guilty no more. Like the kid who learns that Santa is not real, it is time that we all wake up to the fact that negative attacks are not only part of the political process, but an extremely effective tool in galvanizing support behind a candidate or cause. I like negative attacks, I like the fact that one can stand up in front of an audience of millions of television viewers and torture, contort, and abuse the truth. I like the fact that despite the ridiculousness of any claim there are still those who will believe it. It is one of the things that makes politics interesting. It keeps people involved and talking about the campaigns. So I say go to town boys and girls. Spit those negative ads out, give the speeches with more inaccuracies than an Ann Coulter column, and by all means please keep writing books about Swift Boats and Barack Obama being a Muslim. Those of us who toil with the drudgery and utter boredom of work everyday appreciate having your hyperbolic statements to amuse us, and remind us just how stupid people really are.

Where's the Beef???

Perhaps one of the best advertising campaigns ever produced was Burger King's famous "Where's the BEEF?". As I sit watching the increasingly drawn out speech by Sarah Palin I am struck with one question: Where's the Beef? Yes, she can speak in English (take that Bushie) and she is a mother of five (considered a true prerequisite for any national office) and yes it is possible that if we can ever get her to take the bobbi pins out of her hair that she would in fact be the hot mom that all the kids drool over (okay I am done with my chauvinistic comments for the evening), but despite all this there still seems to be a lack of any kind of substance. In a speech that lasted nearly forty-five minutes she mentioned only one specific policy goal. Now please someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that energy independence through wind, solar, and other renewable sources seems to be one of the key components to another party's platform.

Okay, so there was no real mention of issues in the speech. That's okay, we learned lots about Sarah Palin. We learned that being the mayor of a town with fewer people then my high school prepares you to lead the free world. We learned that being the governor of a state with more caribou (well at least until they open up ANWAR for drilling) then people certainly makes you qualified to deal with other world leaders. We learned that it is completely inappropriate for the "left wing media" to make mention of her family, however, it is great to use them as props for political gain. All-in-all we learned a lot about Mrs. Palin tonight, she taught us the difference between a pit bull and a Republican Veep candidate....just a little lip stick.