An Experimental Life

(I'm quite tired right now, so please feel free to point out any errors I may have made in grammar or in fact. Make sure you check your facts before you try to correct mine, though.)

This is not merely an opinion editorial. Everything here is based on verifiable facts that you can check for yourself.

Of course I recognize that the majority of the far right will consider this an unwarranted attack (Funny, considering they don't believe in warrants--that was a pun, by the way.) But then, the far right generally considers repeating the words of their own people in context, pointing out facts in context, calling them on it when they're caught lying or imposing double-standards, having the temerity to ask for substantiation of their claims, or indeed to ask any uncomfortable question at all, attacks from biased folk who want to destroy America. In fact, the far right rants publicly about "attacks" upon their candidate and his running mate that never actually happened. (How desperate must one be to rely on such tactics?)

From whence do I get my information? Well for starters, I'm one of those people who watch CSPAN (you know--the channel that frequently has live cameras and mics on the floors of congress) to see first-hand what goes on, and who makes an effort to watch speeches by presidential candidates and other major political figures. (If you miss a speech you can generally find them uncut and unedited online.) I go to government sites like senate.gov to fact-check, and liste to both McCain's and Obama's dialogs to learn what their positions are and listen to what they say about each other.

This article will focus mainly on the lies, distortions, and double-talk of Senator McCain and his camp--not so much because I support Senator Obama, but because the McCain camp is the camp playing dirty politics. Indeed, the bulk of the McCain campaign seems to be, "Obama BAD," and McCain and his supporters don't mind blatantly lying in order to make that point. It is no more partisan to point this out than to point out that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Now that my long-winded preamble is done, let's get to the meat, starting with some of the most recent and blatant lies, distortions, and double standards (and it'd take a book to address all of them, so this is just a taste)...

According to John McCain himself at the RNC, Barack Obama is against nuclear energy. In fact, Senator Obama has stated on national television that atomic power is part of his plan to wean the United States off of foreign oil.

According to John McCain's recent speech (again at the RNC), Barack Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes, and that these tax hikes will cost American jobs. He also claims that Obama will tax more and spend more.

The truth? Obama wants to lower taxes for poor and middle-class Americans while getting rid of Bush's tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, give tax breaks to corporations who do NOT ship jobs overseas, and withhold those tax breaks from those who DO ship jobs overseas.

Also keep in mind when thinking about taxation and spending, that John McCain supports making the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans permanent, and did not lift a finger when tax breaks for the lowest-income American were allowed to quietly expire. McCain also supports the policy of "borrow and spend" that took us from a national surplus (under a Democratic president, I might add) to a national debt of $9,692,762,945,925.31 (as of 09/09/2008). We're on track to be over ten TRILLION dollars in debt (much of it to China) before Spring. Fiscal conservatives my ass! Don't believe me? Check out http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Yet again from the RNC, John McCain claims that Barack Obama wants to put the government in charge of everyone's health care and have bureaucrats make your health care decisions.

The truth? Barack Obama said that if you already have health care, "keep it." and that if you can't afford health insurance, the government will help subsidize it so that you can afford it. That he wanted to give every American the chance to have the same health insurance and care options that members of congress now have. (This is similar to Kerry's national health care plan, which dubya made the same false claims about.)

Now to fair, let us assume for a moment that John McCain honestly believes that helping people who could not otherwise afford it pay for the same range of health care plans that members of congress gets is putting government bureaucrats in charge of your health care. If this is indeed the case, then lets see where this logic goes. If we apply McCain's logic on health care, we have to assume that Congress is in a terrible situation as far as their health care goes, because government bureaucrats, instead of medical professionals, make their health care decisions.

Also, if we apply this same "logic"--that subsidization equals government bureaucrat control--then government bureaucrats must be in charge of the big oil companies, too, since the government subsidizes them, but that the government--and McCain--are lying to us about not being able to control them.

(As long as I'm mentioning oil, most economists--you know, those guys who study the economy, and whom both the far right and Hillary love to quote when they agree and treat with contempt when they don't say what they want to hear--say that the offshore drilling that McCain wants to do will not produce any results for at least ten years, maybe longer--even our own EIA says it wouldn't do anything until at least 2030, by which time we could be off of foreign oil without it--and even THEN may not make much of a difference in gas prices. Well, then there are also the tens of thousands of square miles of oil fields on land that they're not drilling, and the fact that if we work at it we could decrease our petroleum consumption to the point at which we would need neither additional offshore drilling nor foreign oil.)

Another gem from the McCain camp in general: Obama isn't qualified to be commander in chief because he has no military experience, and that he belittles the generals on the ground and their advice.

On the lack of military experience, you mean like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two of the founding fathers and presidents the Republican party loves to refer to (and lie about) when it suits their purposes? Oh, and by their own standards, the Republicans should have supported Kerry for president over Bush, since Kerry was active military and a combat veteran, while dubya served stateside in the National Guard.

(Unrelated side note debunking some of the far right's lies relating to the founding fathers mentioned above: If you believe that founding fathers intended that the U.S. should be a Christian nation, Google "Jeffersonian Bible" and Jefferson "Letter to William Short" as well as "treaty of Tripoli" to see just a couple of the founding fathers' real thoughts, and the official position of the government of the then newly-formed United States.)

As far as fitness in general and belittling the experience and advice of generals, I can't imagine that over seventy retired Generals and Admirals, including (just to name a few) Scott Gration, Tony McPeak, Wesley Clark, and William Fallon would support, advise, and work to help a candidate form his national security policies if they considered him unfit for the position of Commander in Chief. That this is the case also repudiates the claim that Obama "belittles" the generals and their advice.

But wait... I forgot--Expert advice only counts if it agrees with what the far right has already decided.

The McCain camp's accusation of Barack Obama having disdain for the advice of military experts comes from a distortion of one answer to one question--When asked specifically whether or not he would follow the advice of General Petraeus, he said not necessarily, because a president must consider the larger picture. In other words, no one single general gets to dictate United States foreign policy. What would happen if two generals disagreed? Would we have them fight it out and let the winner decide our foreign policy?

Another bit that McCain has thrown out is that Obama couldn't possibly be in touch with the situation in Iraq because he hadn't been there in years. Right. Two years. His last visit was in 2006.

I think that when examined in full, this point goes to Obama, since even with repeated visits to Iraq, McCain didn't really know anything about who we're fighting, and couldn't keep it straight even after being publicly corrected more than once. Just one among many examples of McCain's lack of knowledge about the situation in the Middle East--Just a few months back Senator McCain said on national television that, "It's not like there's a long history" of hostility between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Either Sen. McCain is completely clueless about the Middle East, or he doesn't consider around 1,300 years to be a "long history."

Initial sound bites from the far right about Obama--"He's not presidential enough."

Okay, that's pretty much a matter of opinion, and they eventually changed their minds about that. When they could no longer deny that he was "presidential," enough, they switched to the opposite pole, calling him elitist. Yeaaaaaah... A core group of mostly millionaires, from millionaire families, use the word "elitist" to refer to a guy raised by a single mother after his father (who was from Kenya, by the way. For the geographically challenged, Kenya is in Africa.) left, who only got to go to college because of student loans and working hard to get academic scholarships, then spent years working as a civil rights lawyer when he could easily have taken a more lucrative practice.

The McCain camp accuses Obama of using the idea of change to advance his career. Again, riiiiiiiight... A guy who has never taken a dime from a lobbyist, even if it might advance his career, and who, again, worked as a civil rights lawyer until running for state senate. As an Illinois state senator, he would talk to lobbyists, even go to lunch with them--But he wouldn't even let a lobbyist pick up the tab for him.

So, Obama is willing to do anything to advance his political career, you say? Well, let's see... Had he appointed Hillary as his running mate, most of her eighteen million votes would have likely gone to him. When Hillary and McCain both were pushing for a summer "gas tax holiday," downplaying the economists (those who, by the way, predicted the recent mortgage crisis,and whom at least Hillary used when they agreed with her about the mortgage crisis) who were saying it wouldn't help and might hurt, Obama spoke against it. When anyone against going to war in Iraq was being branded unpatriotic, Obama stood against it.

(Again, experts are to be quoted when they agree with the far right, and ignored, belittled, and ridiculed when they disagree.)

There are many, many other instances when Sen. Obama could have taken a popular position to advance his career, but remained true to what he believed. Does that sound like a guy who would prostitute himself for votes?

Let's look at more of the pot calling the kettle black, and some of the double-talk and double standards. (No pun intended.)

The same guy who accuses Barack of trying to use the idea of change to advance his career, and who claims that HE represents TRUE change, voted for George W. Bush's policies over ninety percent of the time over the last eight years, reversing his position on nearly everything that had earned him the label "maverick" earlier in his career. After publicly calling those televangelists who called Katrina and AIDS punishment for gays hate-mongers, and stating that he would refuse to pander to them... Well guess who delivered a graduation address at Pat Roberts University, and is now buddying up to the very contingent represented by those he once called hate-mongers.

Now that Barack is no longer, "not presidential enough," the McCain camp is blasting him for trying to act like he's already the president. This after Obama visited with the same leaders as McCain and made some speeches overseas--again, like McCain, but was better received. One of McCain's public comments was that he'd have loved to give a speech overseas, but he'd rather do it here. Again, the AFTER he went overseas to meet foreign dignitaries and make speeches. Meanwhile, McCain was running an ad which--on screen in great big letters--referred to him as President McCain.

The McCain 527 groups have jumped in, as well, with their own distorted attacks. Obama, they said, simultaneously stands for and against handgun bans, among other issues. In fact, Obama stood against the Federal government banning handguns, and FOR local governments being allowed to ban them based on the conditions in their communities.

Now, in all fairness, the candidates have no direct control over the 527 groups. It is interesting to note, though, that Obama publicly asked groups who supported him to not run attack ads, and they complied. On the McCain side, it isn't even just the 527 groups, but the campaign itself running attack ads--every one of which is based on distortions of the truth or blatant lies. Don't believe me? Check the claims for yourself.

Let's see... They claim that Barack skipped visiting wounded troops because there wouldn't be any cameras, yet he had visited many wounded troops many times with no cameras.

The Obama campaign never claimed, as the far right said they did, that the Pentagon told them not to go, but that the campaign group had a couple of generals in tow at the time, and someone at the Pentagon had said the visit would be perceived as a campaign event, at which point Obama was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If he went, he was "using" the soldiers for political gain. He didn't, and so was accused of ignoring them because "there wouldn't be any cameras," and of not wanting to spend time with the troops. In fact, Obama visited with our men and women in uniform pretty much everywhere he went.

"But he made time to go to the gym," they said. Yes, and the picture they showed of this was from two weeks before the scheduled visit, when he went to the gym to--guess what--play basketball with the troops.

Another case in point--and this is an official ad--The McCain camp berates Obama for voting against legislation to support our troops, and claims that McCain "has always been there" for them. The reality? Out of the last seven votes for military funding--and we're talking for things like better equipment, etc., the only nay vote cast by Barack Obama was against funding for the surge (and let's not even get into McCain's rewrite of history on and redefinition of the surge) in order to stop it. McCain wasn't there for all of the votes, and the only funding bill he voted FOR was the one to finance the troop surge.

On dodging questions: Let's first remember that McCain and Stewart got along quite well until McCain reversed his position on the majority of what he claimed to support. McCain had even said publicly that he wished more people got their news from The Daily Show. The new McCain, though, when asked if he felt that giving troops rest between tours of combat duty, among other things, would be more supportive of them than sending them ill-equipped and unrested into combat, refused to answer the question. He would only repeat over and over that all the troops he had talked to felt that they were performing a valuable service. That's sort of like being asked if you like apples and responding, "You know, chicken is very nutritious."

This is not just McCain, but the entire McCain camp. For instance, when a McCain campaign spokesperson extolled McCain's running mate's history of making executive decisions, a journalist asked for an example of one of her decisions. Should be a great opportunity to show what kind of judgment and decision-making ability Palin has, right? Instead of answering, the campaign spokesperson accused the journalist of belittling Palin's experience by asking that question. Then again, this is the same group that skewered Hillary for crying sexism, but who now make that same accusation when people criticize their VP pick, and one of whose prominent pundits slammed Jamie Lynn Spears' mother as being a bad parent when Jamie Lynn became an unwed teen mother, yet when it happens in Palin's family, both mother and daugher are courageous. And while it is unfair for non-supporters to ask questions about this disparity--or even mention it--it is perfectly fine for Palin to trot them out to bolster her image.

Then there is the general Republican tactic of slamming the Democrats in general--fair criticism is one thing, but that's not what they do. The Democrats are supposedly soft on terror, yet 9/11 happened under a Republican president (with a Republican congress) who had been warned by the outgoing president (a Democrat who had pounded with missiles the area Bin Laden was supposedly hiding in) that Bin Laden was the worst threat to the US and that Al Queda was likely going to attack us using commercial airliners. That president even left a plan for dealing with Al Queda. All of this ignored, and yet somehow the Republicans are going to keep us safer than the Democrats?

Wait, but the number one Republican has already told us that, "When we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." So maybe when we talk about being safe, we're really talking about being further endangered.

Then there are all the ridiculous lies being spread by the far right that I can't believe anyone can take seriously--That Obama is a closet Muslim (And if he WERE Muslim, so what? Mohammed taught--in direct contradiction to the Juhadist groups--that all "people of the book," should be nice to each other. Are all Christians terrorists because of the IRA? Are all Christians child molesters because of David Khoresh?), that he was sworn in on the Quran (Again, why should that matter--unless you believe in religious discrimination? Besides, only one member of congress has been sworn in on a copy of the Quran. Look it up. It ain't Obama.), that he went to an extremist Muslim school while living in Indonesia (the school does provide religious education--Christian if your family is Christian, Muslim if your family is Muslim, etc.).

As I said, I'm only scratching the surface here. Volumes could (and have been) written about the Bush/Republican failure to even attempt to do anything about Al Queda until AFTER 9/11. If I tried to cover everything here, I'd be sitting at the computer for weeks, at least. I welcome thoughtful, informed responses by those who have actually checked their facts (While we're at it, you may want to read the Patriot Act, and then Orwell's 1984), even if they disagree with me.

Idiots who haven't bothered to do anything except listen slack-jawed and drooling to the masters and pundits who do their thinking for them shall be appropriately pointed at, laughed at, and publicly humiliated.

In conclusion--Don't get all of your information about either candidate from only one side or one source. Sure, listen to McCain and opinion show like FOX so-called "news." But also listen to the other side, and to REAL news organizations that actually have some journalistic credibility.

Above all, check your facts. It is the height of naivety to simply pick a side and take everything that comes out of that side's collective mouth as gospel. Look at the issues and make your decision based on those issues. That is what I did, and I spent six years defending your right to do so. Just do us all a favor and make an INFORMED decision.