While the news is focusing on recent outbursts at McCain rallies, I doubt anyone’s bothering to mention a few of the things going on at those rallies that might be aggravating participants. Things like this.

Imagine, if you will, if a Republican showed up at an Obama rally wearing t-shirts that said, “Obama is a N*gger!” What do you think the reaction would be? I bet they wouldn’t be allowed in and I bet it would be all over the news the following day as yet another example of “right-wing bigotry”.
But when it’s Obamaniacs who show up at a Republican rally, wearing t-shirts that say “Sarah Palin is a c*nt”? (Which, in my opinion, is one of the most disgusting words anyone could ever fling at another human being.) No one notices, no one cares, and no one bothers to explain the kind of treatment these rally goers are subjected to that might have contributed to their outbursts during the rally. No, of course they couldn’t talk about that on the news! Democrats aren’t the problem, it’s those right-wing bigots!

As an Independent, I’m always happy to point out when there are failings on both sides. But honestly, I’m so sick and tired of the radical left’s constant air of moral superiority, looking down on the right as if the left is perfect in its kindness, tolerance of others, and infinite wisdom. Somehow that just doesn’t jive when they’re the ones showing up at rallies with profane and insulting t-shirts.
If the left is our country’s shining example of tolerance, then we’re doomed. Silly me, here I thought tolerance was about acknowledging our differences, maturely agreeing to disagree, and respecting their rights as an individual to do as they please. But apparently, to the party of sitting on high horses (or high jackasses…), tolerance is about spitting in the faces of anyone who dares disagree with you. It’s about calling names, ridiculing others, and reducing debates to nothing more than shouting matches.

Naturally, this is only one instance. How can only one small group of people with nasty t-shirts lead to me saying such broad things about Obama supporters as a whole? Because these people are only following the instructions of their dear leader, Barack Obama. They’re only following his orders to “argue” and “get in the faces” of anyone who dares to disagree with them. I’d say those four individuals are working hard to make their beloved leader proud.
As for me, I find it disgusting. I was worried about behavior like this the minute I heard Obama give those orders. Now we’re seeing the consequences.
Mr. Obama, you reap what you sow; look at the disrespect you planted and the behavior you’re harvesting.

This won’t be the comprehensive response and analysis that I’m planning: that will have to wait until after I’ve gotten some sleep. Thanks to a horrendous fever that has so rudely kept me up all night, this initial reaction is also much, much later than I was hoping it would be. Oh well, that’s life. But there are a few things that I at least want to touch on as soon as possible, while I’m still in the initial reaction phase.

First off, I’m going to have to check the rules, but does anyone remember any VP debate in the past where – at the same time – each candidate was asked a completely different question? There was at least one specific instance where the moderator, Gwen Ifill, presented one question to Biden, while simultaneously presenting a separate question to Palin. Um, granted, I’m not exacty an expert on debate rules, but I don’t remember seeing a single debate where that has ever happened. Besides being seemingly unfair, it was also extremely confusing.
Thankfully my Tivo was working this time, so I’ll be able to provide video later on about the instance (or instances..) I’m referring to, after I’ve gotten some sleep.

Second, beyond just the strange dual questioning, Ms. Ifill was just plain not very good about allowing for rebuttals. She was unfair in both directions, I felt, as on several instances, one candidate was allowed a rebuttal, while the other was completely snubbed. And this happened to both of them fairly equally, as far as I could tell. Still, not very professional, and it seemed fairly shoddy to me. Again, I’ll provide video later in my full comprehensive analysis.

And lastly, addressing something specific that one of the candidates mentioned: Mr. Biden, you stated that you and Barack Obama wanted to “double” the amount of foreign aid the United States is currently doling out.
Really? Seriously?! This is definitely a specific policy issue that I was completely unaware of, and quite frankly, I’m utterly shocked. I cannot fathom that in the midst of our ridiculous national debt, this insane economic crisis, and all the major issues we need to address right here in our own country, why Obama would even think to double what we’re already sending overseas! Do Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama realize exactly how much we’re already spending on foreign aid? Well, I’ll tell you.
$700 billion dollars. Billion. $7,000,000,000. That’s a LOT of zeros; a LOT of money. OUR money. A significant, huge, massive, behemoth, gargantuan butt-load of taxpayer money.
And they want to double it. Double it.

Now, I could probably understand not reducing the amount of foreign aid – after all, we do a lot of good work with that money. But, um, doubling it? Seriously? With everything that we’re dealing with right now, right here at home, you want to send $1.4 trillion American taxpayer dollars overseas? Let’s put those zeros on it, that’s $1,400,000,000. That’s a LOT of money!!
And where’s that money going to come from? If you don’t want to increase our debt, where are you going to get it? On top of the additional $1 trillion dollars in new spending your ticket is proposing, how are you going to spend another $700 billion – in addition to the $700 billion we’re already spending – on foreign aid, without raising taxes on everybody? Sorry, but even the wealthy 1% you so despise can’t shoulder all of that on their own.

This baffles me. Normally I’m pretty good about understanding where people are coming from with their opinions on policies, even when I disagree. But this? I seriously do not understand this at all. I do not understand why any politician would propose doubling it, I do not understand why anyone would vote to support it. Is it because Obama thinks that we can somehow restore the respect of nations that don’t like us through buying their good will? That would seem rather naive to me – they can’t possibly think that respect can ever be purchased, can they? It doesn’t work on a person-to-person basis, it sure as hell doesn’t work nation-to-nation. I’m sure those nations would take our money with a smile, but you just can’t buy respect. It just doesn’t work that way.
Or do they think this will solve our problems with terrorism? Do they really think that radical Islam has initiated a jihad over money? That would be downright laughable and just plain sad. Seriously.

I really don’t get this. I could understand not lowering it, although I wouldn’t agree with it. But given the mess that we’re in, seriously, why? We need that money here, desperately! $1,400,000,000… wow. I find it so hard to believe that on top of all the new spending their proposing, and now this, that they won’t end up raising everyone’s taxes. I don’t just mean income tax, because there are so many other ways in which your taxes can skyrocket without your income tax ever being touched. It’s just nonsensical to see such elaborate proposals for enormous new spending and not think that the taxpayers won’t feel it. It just makes no sense to me.

Well, that’s my initial reaction. Got a bit longer than I thought, but man, that foreign aid thing… blows my mind. For me, that was the biggest shocker of the night and I hope more people paid attention to it, because that’s a big freaking deal.
Anyway, I’m off to sleep for now. I’ll try to provide a much more comprehensive analysis later on after I’ve gotten some rest. If you have any light to shed on Obama’s whole foreign aid policy, I’d love to hear it.

Like most interested voters, I watched the presidential debate Friday night with great interest. One moment surprised me, however, as the debate seemed to turn into a game of ‘me too, me too!’ over – of all things – bracelets.
When John McCain was asked about the war in Iraq, he mentioned a bracelet that was given to him by the mother of a soldier who was lost in Iraq. He spoke about how much this meant to him, how he wore this soldier’s bracelet every day, and it reminded him how important it was that he ensure this soldier’s death would not be in vain.
In response to McCain, Obama said, “I’ve got a bracelet too.” After a bit of fumbling and a moment to look down at the name inscribed on the bracelet, Obama said that it was given to him by the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, another soldier who tragically lost his life in Iraq. Obama claimed that Mrs. Jopek had given him the bracelet saying, “Can you please make sure that no other mother is goin’ through what I’m goin’ through?”
Here’s the exchange:

(Sorry it’s from Fox News, I know some of you won’t like that. I didn’t record the debate so I couldn’t upload my own copy, I was stuck with whatever was available on YouTube. Regardless, there aren’t any talking heads to skew it, so it shouldn’t matter.)

While both candidates of course have the right to wear whatever bracelets they wish, unfortunately Mr. Obama has completely mischaracterized Mrs. Jopek’s intentions. Not only that, but he has utterly disregarded repeated requests by the family that he not wear the bracelet or use it for political purposes.

According to Mr. Brian Jopek, ex-husband of Ryan Jopek’s mother, Tracy, “she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan’s name.” He went on to say, “she wasn’t looking to turn it into a big media event” and “just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.”
As far back as March of this year, Mr. Jopek was asked about Obama’s use of their son’s name, and how he and his wife felt about it. In talking with a local Wisconsin radio show, Mr. Jopek mentioned that he had been surprised to see Obama wearing the bracelet and mentioning Ryan’s name repeatedly while on the campaign trail, despite his wife personally requesting that Obama not use the bracelet politically, both when she first gave him the bracelet and again afterward when he continued to mention her son.
(You can listen to that radio show here, it’s at about ten minutes into the program.)
During that interview, Mr. Jopek stated that his ex-wife has shied away from responding to any questioning about Obama’s use of their sons name, “Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn’t want to do anything to sabotage his campaign.”

Since Obama has again gone against the wishes of the Jopek family, this time mentioning their son on the largest national stage possible, Mrs. Jopek is again being hounded by reporters despite her wish to stay out of the limelight. She confirmed to the AP that she asked Obama not to mention their son, but again, her wish not to upset Obama’s campaign came forward. She said that she was “satisfied” with the way in which her son was mentioned, and refused to say anything negative about her chosen candidate.

Personally, I find this absolutely appalling. It’s disgusting to me that Obama has taken advantage of the good will of his own supporter – a grieving mother who has lost her son in a time of war – by mischaracterizing her intentions in giving the gift of a bracelet representing the memory of her lost son, and repeatedly denying her request that he not turn her son into campaign rhetoric for political gain. This is beyond low, and yet again, is being mostly ignored by the main stream media.

NewsBusters.org has a good article about this situation, available here. As far as I can tell, NewsBusters seems to be fairly even – they attack inaccuracies in both campaigns evenly, as well as bias in either direction amongst the main stream media.