I heart Blago.

I mean, if you're gonna be corrupt - go large.

Live it.

Rod wasn't playing around.

"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden," prosecutors quoted Blagojevich as saying about the Senate appointment on federal bugs in his campaign office and wiretaps on his home telephone,"and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it."

(Source)

You gotta admire the balls on Blago. Bankrupt Tribune company? Sure, the state can you loan you money, but first, the Tribune will have to fire a few editors who criticized Blago to receive any assistance. Going after the Fifth Estate is never a good idea. That takes balls, man. Even Bush, in his gerrymandering of the news media, doesn't seem to have balls that big. Perhaps, Blago, should have been looking for work with the Bush administration.

Goodness gracious me...

As corrupt as democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich is, at least, the Democrats who he tried to sell the seat to had the temerity and integrity enough to say no. One corrupt asphat discovered, and a handful of honorable democrats confirmed. That will be the forgotten part of this scandal as history is quickly canonized and passed through popular memory.

I think Blago should make the case that's he's just being a good capitalist. That is, letting the market decide just who is qualified enough to become the senatorial successor to Obama. Why not? Most on the right love to state just how much of a capitalist nation we are and that somehow an economic system is tantamount to a constitution which enumerates civil rights as part of its social contract.

Gleefully republicans love to admonish democrats that democrats just don't get it.

I would just love... just love to hear democrats on the offensive admonishing republicans for not understanding capitalism as a defense for Blago.

Or perhaps, democrats could make the tradition argument. Blago is fourth in a long line of Illinois governors to be accused and convicted of corruption. One of which was Republican George Ryan. What's wrong with that, republican? In the beginning, God created corruption and politics. It's a traditional marriage, if you will. Do you republicans have something against tradition?

But as much as I love to see democrats play those cards – even democrats, by and large, ain't that stupid. No need of a tu quoque - if you understand my French.

Anyway, Blago must have his day in court. If the evidence is that good as the indictment indicates, then we are all in for a fantastic trial.

Hopefully, a better trial than that Ted Stevens cat.
 

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.

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.

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. 

As of today, Rasmussen, CNN/Time, WISC-TV, and the Strategic Vision polls track that Senator Barack Obama leads Senator John McCain in Wisconsin with a margin from anywhere as low as 5% to as high as 10%. If these four independent polls are correct, McCain will lose the state's ten electoral votes.

Sensing this, we can see why McCain and sidekick Palin took the approach they did today with their Waukesha appearance. Instead of campaigning in a non-Republican stronghold, McCain and Palin decided that a campaign stop in Waukesha would show just how brave they were. Brave? How brave can you be in front of an audience so partisan and from a county that votes predictably Republican year after year – as predictably as a flood of unregulated Chinese manufacturing that produces cheap, landfill products seemingly designed to deliver grievous bodily harm.

McCain assures us, he's a proven, experienced leader.

However, what kind of leader are you, when your playbook includes standard right-wing chotckies? You know those thirty-two pieces of flair that republicans wear on their chest as some kind of badge of honor? Instead of substance, McCain blames the usual suspects as an excuse for the adversity that he faces. Regardless of the accuracy of these polls, the effect on McCain/Palin campaign can be evaluated by the rhetoric they use.

Today, when a supporter yells "it's the socialists" McCain replies "the Democrats" for the ongoing housing and banking crisis. Ignoring the fact that it was he, John McCain, who suspended his campaign to deliver zippo.

Your leadership, Senator?

McCain does not limit the his excuses to the Democratic Party alone. Why are McCain and Palin doing so lousy in the polls nationally and regionally? Well as Fox 6 reports, McCain/Palin blames the "mainstream media" because, apparently, the MSM isn't asking tough questions. Awww.... that mean old mainstream media. Poor McCain :(

Again Senator, your leadership?

Are we witnessing another wheel falling of the "sidekick" express? I don't know. McCain is correct when he stated today, that "the political pundits in the last two years have written off my campaign."

Obama has not yet won and the campaign season is decidedly not over, and McCain has an immense political apparatus supporting him. We can expect more of the same from McCain in the next twenty-six days. At least, McCain will have drilled the necessary fuel for his own excuses. 

If this is the way McCain runs a campaign, how will he run a country?

Oh yeah... like Bush - he will blame Clinton.

That's pin 33 and counting....