Maybe it’s because I am a veteran, or maybe it’s because I just feel it’s the right thing to do, but support for our troops is one of the most important political issues to me, right behind foreign policy and the health of the economy. But reading Senator McCain’s remarks directed at Senator Obama over this new bill just makes me absolutely sick.

I think DailyKos has become my favorite website in the last few weeks. This is a great place to talk about the specifics of the different issues, share ideas of how to move forward, and talk to like-minded people that already agree with more than 80% of what I say before i say it. That last part is the problem here--we all think alike and already know who we are voting for (please answer the poll below just to prove a point).

Now is the time to switch gears from the primary election to the general election.

That means we need to start trying to convince others that may not agree with everything we say to VOTE for Barack Obama, as painful as that may sound. So where do conservative bloggers hang out? Where is the DailyKos of the conservative brand? I am asking because I honestly don't know.

I don't know how much more of this crap I can take. Is the spin ever going to stop? Surrender, Nazi, appeasement, Islamic Jihadists, middle-class tax cuts, pork-vetoing, "just like Germany", "good progress", League of Democracies, foreign policy experience, "Maverick". You have got to be kidding me! Every time McCain opens his mouth, the washing machine pauses. Are the American People really this gullible? Do the majority of us just take these lunatics at their word and fully accept what Fox and CNN say? I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is crazy.

Wow! If you don't love the guys at FactCheck.org as much as I do, you really need to make sure you are still alive. FactCheck's bottom line up front:

McCain's argument is that:

  1. The McCain economic plan will cut $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
  2. Past and present earmarks account for $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
  3. Therefore, the McCain economic plan will cut past and present earmarks.

The argument is seductive. But consider another argument that has exactly the same logical structure:

  1. Clouds are white and fluffy.
  2. Sheep are white and fluffy.
  3. Therefore, clouds are sheep.

And:

In McCain's world, everyone gets a pony

Given the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary, and Senator Obama's comments on his position on Israel, much has been written in criticism of his remarks. I am writing this as more of a way to ask questions I have on the bigger issue, because there is a lot to be considered here. I commented a few days back about Obama's remarks and was directed to this article, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which I read completely and started more research. But that has only brought up more questions and concerns that I want to ask here while trying to stay as objective as possible. Exactly how does support to Israel benefit US interest? How much power does Israel, through its lobby, actually have in shaping US foreign policy?

So Senator Obama did two very good interviews with Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News and Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room on CNN. I thought he hit a total home run with Williams--he was focused, funny, substantive, and his usual self. But I would argue that his interview on CNN didn't go as well, and I want to point out one area, specifically, that I thought he really missed an opportunity--on taxes and capital gains. But first, the background of what McCain said about Obama's plan.

Picture the setting: On a stage draped in Red, White, and Blue, surrounded from all angles by Old Glory, with a backdrop of an enormous "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" banner spread from one side to the other. The enthusiastic people of the crowd are waving their homemade posters and campaign signs while they dance and sing along with the music. But this is not your normal Barack Obama rally--something feels more special and there is more reason to be so enthusiastic. Then you look on the stage and realize why. Standing next to Barack and Michelle are the likes of Al Gore, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, and they are all there to send one clear message: The time is now to elect Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

I just read an article on the New York Times' website called The Preacher's New Pulpit, by Clark Hoyt. In summary, he wasted an entire section explaining the hits and misses the Times has had during the entire Jeremiah Wright controversy. I absolutely despise the media and its distractions, so I did what I normally do when I read crap like this, especially from the nation's largest and most influential newspaper--I wrote them a letter. Below is what I just sent to Mr. Hoyt, explaining a conversation I had with an Indiana resident that I called last night trying to help the Obama campaign.

If you ask anyone that considers themselves a member of the Grand Ol' Party what their party's principles are--what is the base for which your party exists--you will probably hear an explanation of the Conservative Principles of Ronald Reagan that believes in low taxes, small government, free market solutions, a strong military, and a strict-constructionist school of thought to the Constitution. In my opinion these principles--on the surface and in theory--are actually very good ideas for national success (other than the Constitution crap). You will have a tough time finding someone that says they enjoy the government taking away their hard-earned dollars, and then doubling the deed by wasteful government spending in programs that are too large and extremely inefficient. You will also have to look long and hard for someone that doesn't think a vital part to our national security is having a military that can defend our country from the other guys. And anyone that owns a business is probably against the government dictating how to operate or completely taken over a certain industry. So why exactly have these "Conservative Principles" failed so miserably in the past few years?

Oh no! Obama is losing ground in the polls against Hillary! Oh no! Barack is going to get swift-boated for being an "Elitist" or because his crazy former pastor won't go away! Oh no! A lot of general election polls show Clinton performing stronger against McCain than Obama does. Oh no! The sky is falling!

I am absolutely fed up with the media and it's time to do something about it. As always, this next election is going to come down to how the media portrays the candidates, and we can do our part to try and control what gets attention. So I have a crazy idea, well, maybe not that crazy. I couldn't find if this has ever been covered here, so I figured I would post it anyway. I have an easy way for us to maximize the power of our voices and reach out and touch virtually all the larger media outlets throughout the country. If nobody has thought of this already I would be surprised. What we all need to do is all create an email distribution list with all the email contacts for newspapers, online news outlets, and main-stream media TV. That way every time the media is getting out of line (hourly), we can each send one simple email to hundreds of these organizations simultaneously.

Whew! I have only been hanging around Kos for a couple months now, but I find it quite amusing how mad people are right now over Obama's interview on Fox News Sunday. I just want to make a few quick points here that I think a lot of people are missing completely, then I will go back into my hole.

The current debate format--usually two moderators that ask a series of preplanned questions with no specific time limit--is far superior to to the Bush-Kerry or Bush-Gore debates that were timed with colored lights and even more distractions. But obviously we still need a huge change to the current format because it's become very apparent that the news agencies just use the luxury of sponsoring a debate to further its own self-interest. As I was reading the diary about Clinton proposing a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, I realized this is exactly what the Obama campaign should be pushing for with John McCain, and here's why.

What would you tell Barack Obama if you were his Chief Strategist? I think the current level of campaign debate is sickening, and couldn't be further from the real issues--the economy, foreign policy, Iraq, and John McCain. If I were David Axelrod, I would propose a completely new approach from now until the general election.

With every passing day, Hillary's argument to the Democratic nomination gets weaker. Also, with every passing election, we seemed stunned that the results are so predictable. Disregard every major demographic out there, Obama is exactly right when he states this is a generational divide between the two candidates. Find me one objectionable analyst that would disagree that Obama will win NC, OR, MT, and SD. Clinton will win WV, KY, and PR (not a state), and IN will be close, but either way IN doesn't change anything. The Clinton campaign isn't even talking about what was once the most agreed upon goal--pledged delegates--because Obama's lead will remain around 150 throughout. And unless we actually count Michigan, she will not overtake Obama in popular vote either.

So the question is: What is going to be decided by letting this thing play all the way out?

In the ongoing debate for what I hope will be the general election between Senators Obama and McCain, we really have the opportunity to decide between two very different views of the world and what our nation's direction should be. This is going to be a debate to decide all debates on the two almost extremes of the argument. On one side we have something extremely close to what our foreign policy is currently--a policy of preemptive war as a strategy to persuade those we don't agree with to cooperate. On the other side we have a war-as-almost-a-complete-last-resort strategy that focuses on diplomacy and foreign aide as tools to root out the high-risk areas that breed terrorists safe havens. First and most importantly at the center of this debate is Iraq our immediate plans to fix it.

Guess what tomorrow is? Yes, that's right, it's Sunday and good ol' George Stephenopoulos' show This Week is on ABC. Well, I just want to remind everyone to boycott his show and anything on ABC for that matter as a result of his ridiculous questioning in the debate this week. Seriously, what kind of question is "Does Jeremiah Wright love this country as much as you do?" or, "Can you explain your relationship you have with William Ayers?" We cannot stand for this, and below are some suggestions on what else you can do besides boycotting. I have found emailing ABCNews and his show makes me feel better, and here are the instructions on how to do that.

Does anyone else think Geooge Stphenopoulos should understand that he is wrong a hell for "taking notes" from Sean "effing" Hannity? Well I am absolutely disgusted that he even considered asking a question so laced with gossip and BS. But then to find out that he literally got the question from Sean "effing" Hannity is cause for losing your job. I am making a pledge to email ol' George at ABCNews every day and let him know exactly how I feel. This isn't about me being upset and crying because I support Obama; this is the me speaking up because this is the exact problem with our politics that must stop before we can focus on the real issues our country faces. I would be just as pissed if he asked Senator Clinton an equally disturbing question. I ask that you join me in this cause and take a hot minute out of your day to email ol' George some quick thoughts on how wrong he is. It actually makes me feel better.