One of the first things I learned about politics, sitting in Mr Rupnow's current events class during my sophomore year of high school at Kettle Moraine, is that America historically elects only w.a.s.p's for president.

We just elected the first African-American President of the United States of America, I said, as I held my wife's hand watching Senator Obama's acceptance speech.

Amazing!

Yet, during the night as I watched the returns, I held my breath until enough states went blue and Obama could take a commanding electoral lead. I could not forget the Kerry defeat of 2004. For the first 90 minutes, McCain lead with one southern state after another capitulating red, beginning with Kentucky. Electorally, that was no problem if Obama could eat into some of the states which have voted republican in the past, like Ohio and Florida - which he did seemingly without effort.

When Charlie Gibson called the election quietly and almost non-nonchalantly for Obama, there was a moment of silence until my wife and I realized what he just said.

My wife and I promptly celebrated with a $4.99 bottle of champagne.

While its fantastic that Obama did indeed win – by an electoral landslide no less, and McCain conceded as honorably as he did, there is still much work that liberals need to do in raising social consciousness of how we should regulate social policy administrated by our government..

On that note, one the most evocative moments last night was watching the interview with Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner at the Ryan campaign – who was re-elected over the less crazier choice of Constitution Party candidate... what's his name... Raymond? To the interviewer, Sensenbrenner stated something to the effect, that in order for Republicans to once again lead, they had to return to a party of low taxes and fiscal responsibly, good governance, and true social conservative values.

I wonder what Sensensbrenner meant by "true social conservative values." If "true social conservative values" is legislating policy predicated upon a religious worldview - then I'm afraid I won't be voting Republican anytime soon.

Presently, the Republican party is largely a party of social conservatives. The culture wars that social conservatives purposely engage in, like the banning of gay marriage or civil unions, creationism versus evolution, threatening a woman's health where abortion is concerned, religion over science, drug policy, are really just a whole host of quasi-religious or outright religious principles.

Republicans actively crusade for these principles at the behest of churches or religious right advocacy groups – forever negating the concept of small government by legislating these religious values and imposing them onto our collective freedom of conscious.

I do agree with the opinions of other pundits who state that this country is center-right, if not in economics and regulation, at least in the sphere of the social values I listed above. The banning of gay marriage in Arizona, Florida, and at time of writing this as returns trend, California – illustrates that liberals have much work to do in achieving equality for a class of citizens and restraining government off our bodies and in the choices that we make in our relationships, and the beliefs we wish to, or not, ascribe to.

This is why I admired McCain when he stridently stood up to the religious right, a key base of the GOP as the "agents of intolerance." If our democracy is to survive, it must not function as camouflage for one religion over another - even if that religion is one idiosyncratic variety of a larger whole.

That is why liberals, in this regard, are functionally libertarians – that is, more like true social conservatives then social conservatives are. Liberals are more prone to maintain and fight for the boundaries between religion and secularity.

Personally, my libertarianism expresses my social liberalism which in turn is informed by Humanism and the secular nature of our Constitution. Science, for me, illuminates reality, where religion only substitutes superstition and unfounded and untestable notions on reality.

Where will the Republican party go after this? Where will the Democratic party go after this?

I do not know, but I do have hope.

But it is clear to me, that both parties have a long way to go on these social issues.

Democrats are closer, while Republicans are far from it.

John McCain

:D

The narrative being pushed by McCain and his supporters is there is an overwhelming conspiracy of voter fraud being perpetuated by ACORN and liberals in this election.

The evidence?

Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee states:

“Do we have a documented instance of voting fraud that resulted from a phony registration form? No, I can’t cite one, chapter and verse,” he said.

Furthermore:

Michaelson could not cite a single real example of how registration fraud has led to voting fraud.  

< snip > 

Republican elected officials and lawyers for state Republican parties have made similar claims in court and in statements to the press. So far, however, they have failed to provide significant supporting evidence.

A review of prosecutors’ statements and documents filed by Republicans in the most serious new cases alleging voter fraud shows that none offer an example in which a fraudulently registered person managed to cast a valid vote. While several cases argue that such frauds are possible, none sketched a scenario for how massive numbers of people could fake registrations and then vote.

Perhaps they should heed Michaelson's advice while they are perpetuating this suspicion:

Michaelson explained why the mere perception of widespread fraud can do public harm: “When reports are circulating in the media that this one group has turned in 5,000 applications and 2,000 of them are invalid, for the minimally informed voter, they say, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s happening to our process? Our process is lacking integrity.’ It just plants seeds of doubt in the minds of people who don’t understand the process very well.

“That’s just not a very healthy atmosphere,” he said.

While John McCain and Sarah Palin and Republican members of the blogs at Lake Country Living continue to allege fraud by liberals no less, they are doing so without solid, factual evidence which is proportionate to the immensity that such a conspiracy would require.

In fact, if this election does turn-out to be close (I think it will be), they've only undermined John McCain, and not Barack Obama.

Meaning, they are only hurting McCain's credibility – not Obama's.

So you can rightly ignore their accusations and that these McCain supporters are, at best, "minimally informed."

I'll leave you to determine what "at worse" they are. 

(Source)
 

I've discussed within this blog before just what are my three main priorities in this election. The Iraq War, terrorism, and the Supreme Court. It is because of these priorities, I have already voted absentee for Senator Barack Obama three weeks ago.

I do have other concerns of course, but they either take a lower position within my hierarchy of concerns, or in the case of Church and State Separation and civil rights, are combined as an element with the Supreme Court.

However, before I launch into a discussion of how these three main priorities weighed in my decision to vote for Obama, I want to take a moment and explain what is not a priority for me in this election.

It is my hope that if you one of the 14% who do not yet know to vote for but intend to vote tomorrow, that this analysis of what lead me to vote for Obama will help you.

I apologize for the length of this article - you can skip to the end for the endorsement, or digest it into smaller parts if you need to.
__________________________

The Non-Priorities
This list is not meant to be complete, nor is it meant to be objective - although I tried to be. These are largely my opinions on these issues and from what I know.

Taxes. For liberals and a great majority of Americans, taxes do not represent a burden. We realize that the monies collected by our government largely goes for services that are essential to a civil, fair society. We just ask that you tax us fairly, and spend wisely for programs and infrastructure that have real demonstrable benefit. Just make sure to cover our collective expenses and do not burden generations to come.

But let's get real. If either McCain and Obama would be committing political suicide if either of their tax plans damaged the middle class. The debate that remains is just the haggling over how much should the most richest of us should pay – corporations included. That is social policy, not socialism.

The fear mongering over taxes by the republicans has simply failed to convince me to move this issue into one of my priorities.

Economy, Markets, and Regulation. In relation to a strong economy we need the proper amount of regulation for the circumstances we temporaneously find ourselves in. At times we need less regulation and at times we need more. (Like the tax rate.) Before Reagan, the richest were taxed too much and the economy slowed because of it. Reagan was wise in adjusting the tax rate and for deregulation Ma Bell – airlines, however, has not been as successful. Clinton further tweaked the Regan and Bush's legacy which lead to more economic goodness. Bush went totally off the rails and McCain would continue along that course.

Obama would return to Clinton's tweaks and this will in return keep investment at home and start to cover some of the enormous national debt under Bush's mismanagement and tax cuts that McCain would recklessly continue unabated.

There are smart liberal and conservative economists who continue to be benefited by a government which allows for a wide range of experimentation. I think this is a good thing which will lead to the best and most effective set of principles and methodology to guide our economy over time.

Universal Health Care. While I think it's a fantastic idea that should be implemented at least cover to children until the age 18, I am not necessarily hung up over UHC at this time.

McCain and Obama agree on the necessity of UHC, just their implementation differs. Both Obama and McCain offer a hybrid approach between government and business, but by different means.

Frankly, I don't think either candidate will deliver UHC – although, I think Obama is more inclined because of the interests he represents.

Character. At first, I did not care that Obama is quick-tempered and was promiscuous in college, bombed innocent civilians, endorsed by a Minister who blamed the holocaust on the Jews, and was decidedly un-Christian for the divorce of his first wife to marry another.

Oh wait, that's John McCain.

McCain has largely run his campaign on Obama's character as a merit for his leadership over Obama. This approach and the quality and the kind of attacks by McCain leads me to question the quality and direction of McCain's leadership, not whether or not that McCain can lead.

Experience. The argument by McCain that he should be elected because he is more experienced simply fails to impress me. A man 30 years older than McCain would have more experience than him. Experience means nothing, unless you let that experience guide your decisions in the future. Obama is indeed amenable and able to revise and change course when things are not working as facts and situations dictate. McCain holds on to those past judgments as absolute truths in respect to the Iraq War, regulation of the economy, and terrorism.

Immigration. I do think we need to tweak our immigration system and provide a better path to citizenship for many people who indeed want to become Americans. For the most part, I really like most features of the guest worker policy proposed by President Bush, but disliked the harsh criminalization of illegal immigrants by our very own Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner.

MILFS. I might be in the minority, but damn - I think Cindy McCain is quite the cougar. Meow!

Second Amendment. We have an unequivocal right to bear arms. This June, in a 5 - 4 ruling by the Supreme Court, overturned the handgun ban in DC. I think they ruled correctly.

The Constitution does not enumerate what kind of arms we can or can not own, therefore regulation of those arms is necessary. Honestly, would you be comfortable if your neighbor was building pipe bombs for self-protection, or owned an RPG? Since the Constitution is so vague, conflicts over the 2nd Amendment are inevitable.

There is much demonization of the left by the right over this issue. No, liberals are not coming for your guns - you got that? You do have the right to protect yourself in your home and businesses. I unequivocally support the right to bear arms like many liberals I know do.

However, if you think that your hand gun or shot gun is really going to protect you from the government if it should turn against you – as some arguments insist, you live in an entirely different world than many of us do.
__________________________

On the Candidates
I know in my lifetime, I will never see the election of President who will repeal these awful drug laws, get government out of the choices that I or a woman make over the sovereignty our bodies, and stop playing up their piety to God and legislating laws based upon that Biblical worldview.

Way back last year – prior to this year's primaries, my buddy and I were discussing the possible candidates leading up to his election. I described to him what I liked about both possible Republican and Democratic candidates.

Senator Ron Paul. I agreed with him on Iraq and liked his iconoclasm, but found his views toward markets and church and state too extreme for my taste.

One note: I really hate using the word extreme to describe a person. While I don't agree with a majority of Paul's views as I find his libertarianism to right leaning, I don't think he is someone you should fear - like "extreme liberal" that right-wingers will generally use as a derogation to scare voters.

Senator John McCain. I do respect him for his work on finance reform with Senator Russ Feingold and his years of public service from the Navy to the Senate. I thought he was direct and honest. Loved it when confronted the religious right as agents of intolerance, however he lost that credibility when he appeared at Farwell's Liberty University during the primary season and pandered his way as their candidate. Because of that pandering, I am wary of who he will appoint to the Supreme Court.

His elevation of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his vice president, who is decidedly unqualified to hold office much less lecture on the Supreme Court, only confirms McCain's desire to appeal to the religious right of this country and a real lack of quality decision making. Added to that, his views on how he would lead us out of Iraq, disqualified him eternally in my mind.

Senator Chuck Hagel. While he's as every bit a social conservative like John McCain, the retiring Senator from Nebraska said a lot of really smart things about Iraq and the need to withdraw and the necessity of resolving the conflict to bring our troops back home.

If the Democrats did not offer up as strong candidate as Senator Obama and it was Hagel as nominee instead of McCain, there would have been a strong possibility I would be voting Hagel for president. And if Biden was his vice president as the idea was floated around, we would have had a very strong, qualified ticket to resolve the crisis in Iraq and get back to defeating a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

And while Chuck is very wrong on stem cell research, the criminalization of abortion, he is correct that we must move forward on Iraq and draw down.

Yes, I am very nearly a single issue voter in this election.

Senator Joe Biden. I gave serious thought for voting for Biden in the primaries for the reasons I addressed with Senator Hagel above. He dropped out though and I voted for Barack over Clinton because of the consistency of Obama's views and policy over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically, in my support of Biden his views and legislation on drug policy I disagree with. The no-default rule entirely avoids Constitutional protections on property, liberty, and due process. However, it's standing law now and it needs to be repealed post-haste.

Senator Hilary Clinton. While I thought Bill Clinton was an above average president, I was never sold on Hilary. Her vote to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq is still too much of a political liability for Democrats. We saw this dynamic play out with John Kerry in 2004.

It should be noted, that Chuck Hagel also voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq. For the Democrats who voted for the Iraq War this is still a political liability, however for Republicans who change their position about Iraq it is not. Incoherent and as unfortunately that this is –  this is still the political reality of the United States today.

Senator Russ Feingold. I wish he would have run. He was correct about Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the Patriot Act. Feingold has shown balanced and reasoned judgment through his years in the Senate. And he's also correct - it's about time for a cheesehead president!

Senator Barack Obama. Before the primaries I really didn't know much about the new Senator from Illinois, other than the great speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention, his relative youth, and that he was a guest lecturer on the Supreme Court at the University of Illinois for about a decade. Of course, during the primary process I learned much more about him as he had momentum decidedly in his favor over Clinton.

Honestly, I underestimated Obama's electability as I didn't think America was ready for an African-American president and only thought that a woman could be elected office of president if she came from the right wing of American politics.

Obama defeated Clinton in the primaries which is no small undertaking.
_________________________

On the Priorities
These are my main 3 main reasons why Obama should be president and why McCain should be returned to the Senate.

In my opinion, these reasons illustrate definitive demarcations between each candidate.

The Iraq War. I've disagreed with this war all along. Attacking Iraq for the lies we were sold, confirmed by the absence of WMD's, and the continued moving of the goal posts as reasons to continue to occupy this country, I simply find unconscionable.

Initially, Barack Obama supported a 16-month exit, but has moved more to the center with a 16-month reduction in forces. Unlike McCain, who in May said that timetables would be catastrophic, even if Iraq wants it. Obama's views have changed to meet the facts on the ground. Iraq wants us out, and is already negotiating with us to withdraw by 2011.

McCain never convinced me he knew what to do with Iraq. Victory, he said, would determine when we pulled out Iraq, and that victory would assure victory in Iraq and would determine victory over Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. This position by McCain is incoherent and circular. Timetables keep stakeholders responsible and cognizant of the urgencies involved. McCain seemingly does not want to hold Iraq responsible for its own security and self-determination. Obama will.

Only Obama recognizes the realities on the ground, while McCain lives in a world of his own spin hitching his wagon to Bush's policy of never-ending occupation of Iraq because he can not-qualify what "victory" means.

Despite Obama's fudging, the "surge" has worked well enough, even if not all benchmarks have been met. The Iraqis are standing up for themselves. Let's take what we can get. We must now seize this opportunity to re-align our forces.

Only Obama has taken the pragmatic approach with Iraq and shows the agility to adjust his views and his leadership which will bring our people home and redeploy our forces in the fight against Al Queda and the Taliban.

Meanwhile, McCain will endlessly spin on "victory"  because the word focus group's well.

Terrorism and Afghanistan. I agree with the necessity of invading Afghanistan and wiping out the Taliban, Al Queda, and killing that jackass, Osama bin Laden. This is why the war in Iraq has been a terrible waste of resources and lives in this regard, even though I am glad there is one less bad guy in the world.

Recently, commanders called for 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Our resources are stretched because of the continued occupation of Iraq.

Obama sees the need for redeployment of forces to concentrate on Afghanistan and the difficulties caused by throwing so much into Iraq. McCain, doesn't seem to get this functionally.

The Supreme Court. The court has simply moved to far to the right, with the recent appointments of Judges Roberts and Samuel Alito. McCain sold his political soul to the religious right and for this reason, gay rights, 1st Amendment rights of free speech and press will be in jeopardy if the court should migrate any further.

I am confident that even if Obama were to select even a conservative jurist to become a Supreme Court justice, that this justice will consider legal precedent, respect the purity of the state and the purity of religion. Regardless of political orientation, I think it is more likely that Obama will pick qualified candidates that are not selected off of Dobson's short list like McCain will, and as former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner stated - not rule on cases according to the court's present ideological make-up, but in light of the precedent established by previous Supreme Court rulings.

This is the kind of judicial temperament that Obama will bring to the court.

__________________________

Vote Obama
No candidate is perfect, of course. If we each lived on separate islands, we would all have the very simple task when it came to electing a leader.

Obviously, we don't.

Yet, we have this social contract with one another regulated by a government for and by the people. We must necessarily elect representatives for office in Washington and in our local communities, even though in many cases we hold our noses when we do.

Obama's message of hope and change is a great start, and when I begin to consider how each candidate would lead in respect to Iraq, terrorism, and the Supreme Court, Senator Obama is clearly the choice for me. As well as a number for a number of prominent conservatives, from Colin Powell, Christoper Buckley, Scott McClellan, Kevin Adelman, Francis Fukuyama who've endorsed the Senator from Illinois here and here.

McCain can not lead the economy, or any of the issues I discussed in a new, innovative ways. McCain knows this. This is why McCain must appropriate Senator Obama's language, but not the policies which will bring real meaningful change. The brand of "maverick" is unearned and as hollow as the word victory which McCain uses to discuss how he would resolve Iraq.

Perhaps, the most skeptical of Obama is a fairly conservative publication, The Economist. I think they make a great case for why you too should vote for Barack Obama:

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Clearly, these three reasons for the Obama presidency have become three reasons against a McCain presidency.

Vote Obama!

In government, the role of science holds an advisory position informing the President and as to how public policy should be directed.

During Bush's presidency, climate science and health science became politicized. Bush simply did not like the conclusions of these scientific investigations because of his prior political and religious commitments. There are well documented cases and hearings by the Committee of Oversight and Government demonstrating how science was bent or ignored and scientific integrity damaged.

With McCain we can rest assured that he will continue down the path that Bush has taken in regards to global climate change and health education, even though he would take – as Colin Powell describes a "maverick approach."

Barack Obama understands the importance of scientific integrity and the role of science in relation to good governance. Stating that he would "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees" in a questionairre to the SEA – Scientists and Engineers of America.

Ed Lazowska, chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Chair of Computer Science at the University of Washington, a member of the academy of engineering explains why he endorses Senator Barack Obama over John McCain.




_____

It's also an understatement to say just how important the internet is in for all our lives. Vint Cerf, a computer scientist, and the "person most often called 'the father of the Internet," who holds honorary degrees and awards from include the National Medal of Technology, the Turing Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, explains why net neutrality is import and why Obama receives his vote.



_____

Marty Chaife, this year's nobel prize winner (along with 60 others) in chemisty explains why he endorses Obama.

In order for the president to lead, he must make good decisions.

It's not a maverick we need at this time, but a president who is willing to listen and then wise enough to implement the advice he receives. McCain will only stay the course.

This is why that many prominent conservatives (here and here) judge Barack Obama as a man of good character and a man more qualified to direct policy and lead the United States over John McCain.

It is an understatement to say how important science is in our daily lives. Science is the best and only method of inquiry which we have to confront the challenges that we face and plan for the future.

Barack Obama gets it.

While McCain has been a solid, staunch conservative on social issues the sum of his political career, many conservatives like Colin Powell, Christoper Buckley, Scott McClellan, have now been joined other prominent conservatives who would prefer an Obama presidency over McCain. You can read a quick snapshot of their reasons here.

Joining the aforementioned, you'll note that McCain's pick of Sarah Palin weighs heavily in their decision to vote and endorse Obama.

Kevin Adelman. A "lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001."

Adelman endorses Obama because:

"Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick."

Francis Fukuyama.  Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Strassuian, colleague of Harvey Mansfield, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, and author of The End of History (sitting on my back burner) endorses Obama.

I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale.

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all.

America has been living in a dream world for the past few years, losing its basic values of thrift and prudence and living far beyond its means, even as it has lectured the rest of the world to follow its model. At a time when the U.S. government has just nationalized a good part of the banking sector, we need to rethink a lot of the Reaganite verities of the past generation regarding taxes and regulation. Important as they were back in the 1980s and ’90s, they just won’t cut it for the period we are now entering. Obama is much better positioned to reinvent the American model and will certainly present a very different and more positive face of America to the rest of the world.

The Economist. Offers one of the least enthusiastic endorsements of Obama, but an endorsement nonetheless. I think they take a rather balanced approach over the question of who to elect or not.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

...

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

...

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Zach, over at Blogging Blue observes the significance of this endorsement:

"The Economist is well known for (and freely admits) its tendency to favor free market economics.  We’ll see if that stops some conservatives from employing their newfound favorite word — “socialist” — to refer to the 165 year old publication."

So if your one of those 14% of voters are still can't decide on who to elect, please consider what conservatives say about Obama. Their endorsements are significant because they refute the assertions by the McCain campaign that Obama is not ready for office.

You can almost hear it now.

It was the liberal media. The anti-Americans. The elites. The socialists. The communists. The pagans.

Undoubtedly, we will once again witness a frantic Pavlovian, finger-pointing response from the chorus of republican disapproval in the wake of a McCain loss – especially by our host of conservative bloggers at Lake Country Living.

No, instead of laying blame squarely on McCain, they will focus their indignation toward these tried-and-true scapegoats and bogeymen while effectively providing themselves an effective "out" from reality.

To that end, we can now add two more voices to this chorus and a new scapegoat as two top McCain advisers point to Sarah Palin and describe her as a "diva" and unable to take "no advice from anyone," to my favorite, "whack job." Palin is now the new, convenient target of republican scapegoating as favorable polling of Palin among independents and swing voters continues its long slide southward, dragging the McCain/Palin presidency with it.

Don't you understand? Dear God! Blame anyone and everything but McCain. Just you never mind the fact that it was John McCain who selected Palin as a running mate as a preview of his first presidential-like decision. I guess it must be those godless pagans at fault again.

And while your minding the never minds, forget that it was McCain who decided to smear Obama as a socialist, the Antichrist, terrorist, or anti-American that the media was all too happy to repeat. These attacks by the McCain campaign were quickly shunned by Americans, who are more interested in solutions than name calling. The only traction that these smears have any credibility are with stead-fast republican adherents. Now with only less than a week to go, McCain sensing the folly these attacks, has returned to less sensational attacks on Obama's character by focusing on the issues of experience, the economy, and foreign policy. This approach seems to work. McCain is now, once again, benefiting with a tightening in the polls.

But remember though if McCain should lose  – at all costs, McCain is not to be blamed.

Pathetic.

Predictably, republicans are following the same pattern they established before and during Bush's presidency such as blaming all of Bush's failures on Clinton. As if, Clinton was in office during 911. Please. Of course, Bush only receives credit if something good (or at least non-disastrous) breaks his way. Republicans would rather have us forget that an effective president makes good, sound decisions that succeed in spite of the decisions of past presidents as the "blame Clinton" red herring assuages.

It seems to me that republicans live in a paranoid, cloistered world confirmed by their delusions and the echo chamber which they shroud themselves in. Liberal bogeymen at every corner, under every bed and bathtub, and imaginary, impossible conspiracies all aligned against conservatives – one after another.

Perhaps, conservatives should wake up and retire these myths of theirs if they really want to lead in the future.

From my own experience in the wake of the 2004 election, this is no way to live. The fear and suspicion you stoke up will only burn you up. John Kerry lost because he was – after all, a pretty week candidate and a terrible communicator. Like McCain, he was unable to be a consistent "straight talker."  Kerry, as with McCain, never organized the campaign machine that Obama now possess along with Dean's 50 State Strategy. As Stephen Hess, fellow of the Brookings Institute, observes that the Obama campaign has the "best run presidential campaign of the modern era." If liberals and democrats would have remained fixated in the delusion that the media was set against them (or some other such nonsense that I heard liberal pundits espouse during the time), McCain would not be fighting to maintain the slim leads in six states which have all voted republican in the past two presidential elections.

After the dust settles and whether or not McCain wins, if republicans wish me to vote for them in the future, they should return to classical conservatism. Focus on the size of government and the effective use of resources, and leave the social issues behind. Keep your legislation away from the sovereignty of my or a woman's body. Let me decide on what drugs I choose to put in it, or who I sleep with  – that is none of your business. Acknowledge science to direct appropriate energy policy and education. Defend church and state separation and not only work to guarantee my freedom of conscious, but keep government out of marriage as well.

Most importantly, stop dividing the country up into hamlets of "real-Americans" and "anti-Americans."

Despite our ideological differences, we liberals and conservatives largely share the same goals. A safe, fair, and prosperous United States of America. Otherwise, if you continue on the course you are on, you'll only find yourself as head of a Torquemada of your own creation – persecuting anyone who does not espouse your likewise dogmatic political beliefs.

And democrats - heed this as well. 

 

To you Obama supporters, go vote early as an absentee. I voted absentee two weeks ago.

To McCain supporters. No need to vote. God is in your corner.

(Special thanks to one of my friends - a McCain voting republican who sent this to me.)

 Hold the presses.

It ain't true.

Apparently, a 20-year-old college student, Ashley Todd, invented the whole thing.

"Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM when the man approached her from behind, put a knife with a 4- to 5-inch blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away."

That usual suspect... a black man. Surprised? Nah... Todd then alleged that "he then sat on her chest, pinned her hands down with his knees and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife."

"They just started talking to her and she just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth..." Bryant said.

 So the attack never happened.

(Stop for a moment and exercise your powers of observation in the picture. What's become of college lately?)

Anyway, ignore all of that for a moment.

For the sake of argument, let's say this attack really did happen and everything that Todd alleges is true. In fact, let's also pretend that the Pittsburgh police caught the suspect and he confessed to the attack and the attack was politically motivated.

What should the response of liberals and democrats be?

Should we say suspend  judgment and say, well we don't know what Todd could have said to incite such violence? Should we blame Todd for inviting the attack? I mean we could not see what Todd had said, so perhaps she had said something in which begged this man to attack her. In fact, she deserved it.

No.

The proper response would be to condemn this person and an attack like this.

Liberals have no need to play Team "D" at the expense of common sense and respect to people rights.

However, some do (Amy Hemmer ... Amy Hemmer) because they must play Team "R" at all costs.

Lesson today: Do not defend the indefensible.

When you do, you've only exposed yourself as the hypocrite that you thought you gotcha'ed.

Very few – if any, deathbed conversion stories pan out to be reliable.

For example, Charles Darwin. It was said that he renounced evolution and embraced Christianity on his deathbed. A fabricated story. Darwin died an atheist and still convinced of the science he so painstaking tested over the course of some 20 years.

Despite the unreliability of these deathbed conversion stories, they continue to hold a power over us and play upon our imaginations for whatever reason.

There is no need for imagination where the reliability of present day political conversions and endorsements are concerned though. Much has been made of the oft Hilary Clinton supporter so miffed by Senator Obama's candidacy, who are now voting for Senator McCain. Yet, little has been said of republicans, or conservatives, who have endorsed Senator Obama instead of the de facto Republican Party leader and candidate, Senator John McCain. And I am not talking about those conservatives, like George Will, Kathleen Parker or Ken Adelman, who blasted McCain for his inane pick of Sarah Palin - which is quickly becoming McCain's own Harriet Myers moment.

Until now.

Here are just a few of the more prominent republicans and conservatives who have broken with their fellow partisans. Their collective endorsements directly rebut the criticisms by republicans and other conservatives against Obama that he is not able or ready to lead.

Colin Powell. In probably the most high profile of all endorsements, Republican and former Bush administration cabinet member  rebuffed McCain for his smears against Obama and stated "I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and you have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance..."

Christoper Buckley. When the son of the late National Review founder, William F Buckley, endorsed Obama for president he forced to resign his small column due to the hate mail he recieved. On Obama, Buckley stated that "Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for."

Scott McClellan. Off the heals from the recent publishing of his book criticizing Bush over the policy to war with Iraq, the former Bush press sectary stated "From the very beginning I've said I'm going to support the candidate who has the best chance of changing the way Washington works and getting things done. I will be voting for Barack Obama."

Republicans for Obama. A grassroots organization of republicans who  have campaigned and voted republicans for "all their lives." They endorse Obama because "Senator Obama has rejected the politics of division and the win-at-all-costs attitude that has hurt our ability to move forward as a nation. While we as Republicans will not always see eye to eye with a President Obama, we know that his politics of competency and unity will lead to a stronger America."

Are these types endorsements convincing to voters? 

Curiously, Obama did receive a boost in the polls after Powell's endorsement. The Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll showed a 11 point sway in Obama's favor, with 2 in 10 independents who are now more likely to vote for Obama in the wake of Powell's endorsement.

Will this ultimately sway the undecided come November 4th?

I do not know.

The reasons for why people vote the way they vote are complex and not easily understood and I do not wish to pay the issue lip service in this small space. However, it is interesting to note the reasons why when a member of either political persuasion endorses a rival candidate and what convinced them. I've voted for a "rivals"  in the past and it has always been a curious experience for me.

Why? It's a matter of priorities. If a republican would deliver gay marriage rights, protect a woman's reproductive rights, stand firm on the separation Church and State, repudiate racism (which many do obviously), and rebuff faith-based funding, I would vote for that republican despite my disagreements on the role and size of government or other areas of policy. (These are not my main priorities in this election, however.) The why's transcends the how's in this case.

Allegiance to party does not obviate progressive necessity and human rights.

Likewise, the above republicans and conservatives have prioritized their concerns and have endorsed Obama accordingly.

It should be obvious to all Americans that we live in a democracy and not a theocracy, despite the inevitable conflicts between church and state.

Democracies and theocracies are mutually exclusive forms of governance. You can not have a government for and by the people, and a government which exists to carry out God's laws.

For instance, take blaspheme. In Mark 3:29 we are informed that "...whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven, but is guilty of eternal sin." One such famous case of blaspheme is the Trial of C.B. Reynolds from the late 19th century.

Wait, one second... Screw you! Holy Spirit!

Anyway, where our democracy is explicit about free speech - despite some wrongful exceptions to the contrary, nowhere does the United States Constitution (a legal document) state that speech is not "free" except with a few conditions. 

Like blaspheme for instance.

Sarah Palin was interviewed by Bob Dobson of Focus on the Family (ie. hate the gay) yesterday.

"... it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God's hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4."

And what if Obama wins? Will that be God's will too?

Probably not. It's only God's will when something you want happens, happens. If it does not happen, well then - it's your fault.

"It is that intercession that is so needed," she said. "And so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation. And I so appreciate it."

Palin thinks that God will intervene and turn McCain's and Palin's fortune around come election day. Palin ascribes to Third Wave Theology, a doctrine which asserts that the Holy Spirit is an active and approachable entity in  people's lives.

Basically, God will appoint the Republican ticket to the office of President by intervening in the vote.

If it is His will for the Palin/McCain to win all along, why the need to pray for it? God is omniscient after all, and should know a priori what your hopes and desires are. God is also omnipotent. How would the groveling by a Christian change His mind if Obama was not God's pick for President?

No. Don't bother to harmonize the contradictions. For each one you do, you invoke hundred more.

Confirming this, Dobson stated that he and his wife would pray for "God's intervention."

Funny that is.

While Republicans will endlessly cry about ACORN and alleged voting fraud by the organization, they have no problem with usurping your vote by appealing to God to rob you of yours.