Prove it!

Congratulations to Obama. History has been made. Black people in this country can no longer say that it isn't possible for them to achieve any dream. 40 short years ago no one would've dared to think that America would have it's first black president. There are no excuses any more for any one in this country for not achieving their dreams. Race, poverty, immigrant, farmer.... from a small state or urban city center.... we can all make it happen.

Now the onus is on Obama. He made a lot of lofty promises and speeches. He raised people's 'hope' to levels not seen in politics in a long time. Expectations are extremely high. Can he do it? I don't think he can, that's why I didn't vote for him.

Congratulations. You talked the right talk. Now you have to prove it to us that you can really do what you promised.

Infanticide

This subject has been popping up. While in Illinois, Obama voted and spoke against a bill that would provide care for fetuses that had been aborted, but survived the abortion to be born alive. At the time the fetuses were simply left to die. His argument against it was that it did not provide a neutrality clause. The measure failed, but a federal bill was brought up while Obama was in the US Senate. Obama's own committee placed a neutrality clause in the federal bill, which Obama then voted against. Luckily the bill passed.

Why do I bring this up? Obama is attacking John McCain with this ad:



That despicable liar John McCain... right? Wait.. he didn't even put out the ad!? That's right. A PAC for born alive advocats put out the ad. Not McCain.



And just in case you don't believe me. Here is a recording of Obama arguing against the bill because he thought that bringing in a 2nd doctor to take care of the infant would put too much burden on the person who is having the abortion.



Whose really despicable here?

Obama blocks troop withdrawals

via The New York Post

According the the Iraqi Foreign Minister, while Obama was in Iraq he told the nation's leaders to stop dealing with the President and his Generals and wait till after the election. What's wrong with this you ask? First of all, it almost smacks of treason. He didn't go far enough, but the man was clearly in the wrong. Senators are not authorized to deal with any foreign negotiations. This undermines the chain of command.

Second, if Obama really wants the troops out of Iraq asap, why is he stalling negotiations that will allow them to leave? Answer: He's banking on winning the election and then being able to claim victory in Iraq. He's politicized the war and the troops that are currently in harms way. He doesn't truly believe that pulling the troops out is important... unless it wins him votes.

Did Obama's camp deny this? Nope. They can't because there were witnesses. They essentially confirm it in their press release. via HotAir, plus McCain's response.

McCain predicted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout??

Brilliant article found on Hotair by Ed Morrissey.

Funny that Obama, who has become Fan and Fred's favorite politician by giving him 4x's more lobbying money in 4 years than it gave McCain in 20+, is claiming that the bailout is a result of the Republicans failed economic policies. Really? Wasn't it Bill Clinton and the Dems that created Fannie and Fred to provide mortgages for lower income families? People, who it turns out, can't afford mortgages and are now in a bigger financial crisis by having to deal with foreclosures? Hasn't Fan and Freddie been led by Jim Johnson who was leading up Obama's VP candidate vetting?

So much for free speech

I find it funny that the campaign for change is resorting to good old fashion mob mentality.

Who is the villain that they need to silence? David Fredosso. Author of the book The Case Against Barack Obama.

So much for free speech and the opportunity afforded both sides to air their opinions. Even if they disagree with Fredosso (which they would have to be stupid not to disagree with him) they lend credence to his argument since they are so vehemently opposed to him appearing on an AM talk show. Makes you wonder if he might've gotten it right in his book....

Dividing the Country

Or call it slinging mud, personal attacks or whatever. When it comes to campaigns it is almost second nature for candidates to 'attack' their opponent. Many people complain about the negativity of the campaigns and explain away their antipathy towards voting. The thing I find most interesting about this attitude is that many think its only in American politics. Or that people think that it's been getting worse. Obviously neither is correct.

Politics have been around since man formed tribes. Since the beginning it has been notorious for verbal and physical attacks. Nations have been torn apart by civil war simply because the wrong party won or lost the election.

America has been unique in the fact that elections don't lead to violence. We were one of the first nations to have a democratic process with two political parties and almost no violence. Parties who loss peacefully left office and the new party didn't go out of its way to in avenging themselves upon the losers.

People and voters would love to have an election without negativity. What is negativity in politics? Is defining the difference between your positions negative? Is stating that your policy is better than your opponents better? Is contrasting your experience versus your opponents negative? Is saying that your opponent is old and out of touch negative?

What I'm getting at is what we find negative in politics is what allows the candidates to define themselves. We need to see the contrast. We need to see the differences. If they were the same candidate, we wouldn't care who won. They are different and those differences need to be shown.

This does not divide the country. This does not lead to violence and civil war. So lets stop claiming that one party or the other is causing the country to be divided. That's politics. I heard a saying that politics is like opinions and that opinions are like your ass... everybody has one and it's always divided.