McCain Versus Obama on Free Trade: McCain = McCan’t and Obama = OhMama

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

You have heard this famous cliché many times, we are sure. “There is no such thing as a free lunch”. There is even an acronym for it! TANSTAAFL. Go figure. For an explanation of how the cliché was derived, read the reference link. It is quite fascinating, well, at least interesting, well worth a click anyway.

Our politicians banter about the term “free trade”, but what it means is not exactly clear. Similar to the “free lunch”, it is practically a cliché. Our personal definition would be trade of merchandise between nations without taxes, duties or fees. So, if an item costs $5.00 to purchase from a company in Mexico, you don’t pay $30 because the US government wants $25 in tariffs, you actually pay $5.00!!  This combined with free and equal access, so it is as easy to find and buy our goods there as it is to find and purchase theirs here.

This really does not exist for the individual. We have relatives and friends all over the globe and most nations examine every package sent, even those declared as gifts, and charge fees and duties to the recipients. This is even with our so-called allies. Recently we sent a video collection to a friend in Canada. Its value was $100. They taxed our friend $30 even though it was marked clearly as a gift. 30% is hardly free.

Similarly, when we arrive home from travel to a foreign destination, our bags are searched to see if we have anything to “declare”. If we do, we pay taxes and duties on it. “Free trade” is a pipe dream for the individual.

On a larger scale, free trade provides merchandise from foreign countries at a significantly cheaper price than if tariffs and fees were charged. The questions become, why is it cheaper and what does it really cost us to deliver those cheap goods to our shores?

So called “free trade” has proven to be a double edged sword (what another cliché?). It clearly cuts both ways. It is not always tit for tat.  or even Steven. But we digress.

Fact is, nothing is “free” in “free trade” except the word free, and the lie behind that word has cost America plenty. What America has gained with respect to “free trade” is primarily a lower inflation rate. Just ask Uncle Alan Greenspan. We are able to import vastly cheaper products than we could manufacture in the US, so products are indeed cheaper. Check that $10 shirt in the closet and your $39.99 shoes and see where they are made. We are willing to bet it isn’t in the US.

Most of our cars are manufactured in Mexico, Canada, Korea, Germany and Japan. Most bicycles, clothing, shoes, etc. (and we stress the etc.) are manufactured in China and throughout Asia. The other edge of the sword is that it is no longer profitable to make anything in America, so jobs are lost, but more importantly, the national trade deficit rises as we purchase vastly more than we sell. Perhaps, as our wonderful politicians state, you actually could train people for new jobs, but that would only make them buy more foreign products increasing the deficit even more. Great idea.

The biggest consideration of a huge trade deficit is a weak dollar. The dollar has collapsed versus other currencies since we instituted supposed “free trade” with many other nations. Now, think for a minute. If this were fair, why are their currencies soaring with respect to ours? Because the only thing we have to trade is our dollar!! We don’t make anything else, so all we can do is print money to buy it all!

It is apparent that the gain in lowering the rate of inflation does not compensate those that lost their jobs as a result, and it certainly does not justify our huge trade deficit. If “free trade” were equal trade, the huge trade deficit would not be there! But we do at least have EBAY for those that lost their jobs as a result.

NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was drafted for free trade among North American Nations. We cannot possibly cover all the facets and criticisms of this agreement, but it is also covered here. It has caused much of a stir over the years, and whether it was beneficial or not depends on your perspective, but we believe it the least of our problems.

We do not believe in “free trade”. We believe in fair trade. And we do not believe in fairness only for special interests, but for America as a whole. Certainly some businesses benefit strongly from marketing cheap goods in the US Market or exporting their labor to foreign nations, but who pays for that, and just as importantly, who gets paid for endorsing it (lobbyists, government officials)?

Here is an article that clearly defines how badly we are doing on the trade front. We agree completely with the Democratic position here. “In July, the politically sensitive deficit with China increased 16.1 percent to $24.9 billion, the second highest gap on record.

Critics contend the administration has not done enough to combat unfair Chinese trade practices. U.S. manufacturers say the Chinese keep the yuan undervalued by as much as 40 percent against the American dollar. That makes Chinese goods cheaper for American consumers while making U.S. products more expensive in China.”

On an international basis, we must be more restrictive with nations that cheat the United States. China, for example, while they provide cheap products, steals daily from Americans. They destroy American companies with illegally exported products and they cheat wherever it favors them. They market fake companies on our stock markets and steal from our investors by falsifying reporting information with the assistance of the NASDAQ and NYSE. And when one of these companies goes under, and the Chinese criminals make off with the money, no one prosecutes them; the Chinese government lines their pockets and Americans surrender another portion of their retirement portfolios.

Nations that cheat and steal from the United States should not be offered free trade even if it means cheaper products. Those cheaper products ruin US companies, destroy jobs and line the pockets of criminals. It is not that we think fair trade is not an objective we should seek with all nations, but we think our government has severely failed us in protecting us from economic theft by nations such as China that even cheat with 12 year old girls in Olympic Gymnastics. China does not deserve free access to our markets, and US citizens do not deserve to be abused by a government drooling over the evident opportunities for their special interests.

All that said, and now that we have made our opinions on “free trade” and trade in general as clear as we can without a complete dissertation on every possible trade agreement, let’s allow the candidates to have a say. After all, it isn’t we that are running for President.

Continue on next page…

Obama Versus McCain: The Iraq War. Obama Told You So

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

So many people in our lives say, after the fact, “I told you so”.  Does it ever help your current situation or make you feel better?  Or does it just make you feel bad about yourself and wish what had gone before never happened?  More importantly, did it ever make what had gone before any different?  We will leave you to deal with these rhetorical questions.

Obama’s approach on this issue is to use exactly that tactic, “I told you so”.  To tell not only McCain, but all citizens, Republicans and Democrats (including Biden) that believed in the war at the time that he (Obama) voted against it.

But the fact is, it doesn’t matter what our decisions were 7 years ago.  9/11 happened, we reacted, it’s over, we are there.  We believe the candidate that should be favored with respect to this issue is the one most prepared to deal with it in the “now” not yesterday.

Vietnam and Korea were American disasters because we did not have the conviction to attack and destroy an enemy that was vastly inferior.  Iraq was not the case.  The US wiped out the Iraqi Army in weeks with almost no casualties.  And we proved something in the process.  That wiping out a nation’s leadership leaves us, by the nature of our government, responsible for that nation.  As Colin Powell put it, “if you break it, you own it“.  And after billions and billions of US dollars spent, indeed we do.

But what do our politicians really want to do now, in 2008?  It seems Obama wants to bail and leave it up to Iraq to solve its own problems.  It seems as though John is saying stay the course, but there is little indication there is a plan as to when it will be over.  With McCain it seems like we could just police Iraq forever.  With Obama, we see some light at the end of the tunnel, but that light might be a bus headed right for us as we emerge.

This is a lose-lose for both sides.  The Iraq war was entered into not as the Democrats would currently have you think.  It was not based on a lie.  It was based on 9/11, an attack on us by radical Muslims and the belief that Iraq was the most rogue of the Muslim nations and had to be held accountable for harboring weapons of mass destruction and for supporting terrorism.  No one now seems to recall, but Saddam was doing his best to avoid UN Inspections and did indeed appear to be hiding military secrets.  Fact is, he just turned out to be a deluded lunatic that lived in a hollowed out tunnel after the war babbling to himself.

Now, what we realize is that even if Saddam Hussein was as dire and evil as he was depicted, the result of deposing him was an unstable Iraq.  Imagine an America where US troops had to circle the streets daily to maintain order.  Imagine what would happen if a nation stepped into our world and destroyed our government, regardless of whether it was led by Republicans or Democrats, introducing total anarchy.  Would you want that government to stay and help restore order or would you want them to get out so you could?  Sounds like the latter is the answer, but the only thing protecting you from the criminal elements is the very occupation force you despise.  So, as Colin Powell presciently pronounced, once you depose the government, you become the government.

One interesting cause of war is what it does to a President’s approval rating.  People think this is unique to Bush, and he is the worst President ever, but facts prove otherwise.

Bush’s approval rating is an abysmal 31%, but from CNN polling director Keating Holland we find… “Bush’s approval rating five years ago, at the start of the Iraq war, was 71 percent, and that 40-point drop is almost identical to the drop President Lyndon Johnson faced during the Vietnam War,”.

“Johnson’s approval rating was 74 percent just before Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which effectively authorized the Vietnam War. Four years later, his approval was down to 35 percent, a 39-point drop that is statistically identical to what Bush has faced so far over the length of the Iraq war,”.

America wants a fast victory, and war just doesn’t work that way, especially not occupations.  The estimates at the time of the start of the war were that it would take 5 years or more to resolve things, but it is like a car payment.  The first year, you love the car.  The second year, you start disliking the payment and by the fourth year, you want to get rid of it.

The fact is, however, Iraq has gotten much better.  A tactic called “The Surge” endorsed primarily by George Bush, against the advice of his generals and advisors, has worked.  Bush sent 5 brigades of additional man power to Iraq and the violence has been reduced dramatically.  Rumsfeld and General Casey were sent packing and Bob Gates and David Petraeus replaced them.  And regardless of what the Democrats claim and what the public believes, in this instance, Bush was right.  “The Surge” has been a huge success and that will make it very difficult for any dramatic change by a new President whether it is Obama or McCain.

Obama Admits he is MUSLIM!! Refers to “His Muslim Faith” Watch It Here…

In a supposed slip of astronomical proportions, Obama admits he is a Muslim. Now, liberals will say it was just a slip, but think for a minute. Had any politician running for the Presidency ever, even accidentally, referred to him or herself as a Muslim, would the American public vote for that person after 9/11? And if any conservative or Republican had slipped to this extreme, would the liberals EVER let up on that fact?

It is akin to Governor Palin saying she endorsed the abortion of her daughter’s child. Worse, it is like slipping and saying she participated in the abortion. It is the same as President Bush saying out loud Iraq was a mistake or a reticent Cheney saying the war was all for oil and that he received kickbacks from Halliburton. No, it is even vastly worse than that!!

In a candid interview, Obama referred to “his Muslim Faith” and had to be corrected, by no less than a white Christian!! He said he finds it offensive others refer to him as Muslim and then he himself said he is of the Muslim faith!!

We believe God made Obama slip, because Allah ain’t that great after all.

Here is the transcript of the interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention your Christian faith. Yesterday you took off after the Republicans for suggesting you have Muslim connections.

Just a few minutes ago, Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager, said they’ve never done that. This is a false and cynical attempt to play victim.

OBAMA: You know what? I mean, these guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand. The…

STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections.

OBAMA: No, no, no. But the — I don’t think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let’s say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said that’s wrong.

OBAMA: Now, well, look. Listen. You and I both know that the minute that Governor Palin was forced to talk about her daughter, I immediately said that’s off limits. And…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith.

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain’s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: … my Christian faith. Well, what I’m saying is that he hasn’t suggested…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Has connections, right.

OBAMA: … that I’m a Muslim. And I think that his campaign’s upper echelons have not, either.

What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I’m not who I say I am when it comes to my faith — something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time.

The Primary Issues Of The Presidential Election 2008 Obama versus McCain

We have read the speeches and followed the conventions and read much of the emotional fluff that goes into any election. Fact is, this comes down to fundamental issues we all care about.

Now, how does a candidate give you the warm feeling you need to make sure you don’t leave a chad hanging when you vote? To totally commit to a candidate, you have to believe in the entire package. So, they feed you a package, with the edge taken off of each primary issue.

The problem is that by the time November comes around, you really don’t know what you are voting for or against, so you tend to vote your party, which you may have chosen because your father was a member of that party, or maybe because he wasn’t!! Perhaps it is your current group of friends, or maybe it is the persuasion of a particular set of folks that convince you, or maybe you even just make the decision in five minutes over a glass of wine.

But the fact of the matter is most people that vote for President, do not understand half the issues when they make their selection. It is not because they lack intelligence, and we have been as guilty as the rest. It is where we focus our time. The selection of President is clearly critical to the nation, but so is paying the bills, dealing with taxes, and taking care of your children. How much time is there in a day? Is it possible that we allow the hyperbole of the election to drive our selection, and is it any surprise that quite often it is the candidate raising the most money that gets our vote in the same way the brand name products get placed in our shopping cart?

We are going to attack the issues one at a time between now and the election and pin down the candidates on their side. We ask for your inputs where you feel we are wrong or right. And we want to determine, one by one, which man is the better selection for President.

We do ask you that you realize one primary issue. No matter what ideals the candidate holds and how many promises they make, they will not and cannot keep them all. Most are ideals they hold that allow you to identify with them. Many will turn out to be a lost cause and seem like false hope. So another objective is to let you know where we feel the position your candidate is taking is likely a pipe dream and an ideal, but cannot happen in the real world.

Welcome to myrealitytelevision.com. Please feel free to make yourselves part of our reality!

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Sarah Palin’s Daughter, Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, In Scandal Giving Birth To Alien Babies

Today it was confirmed that Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol, is pregnant and is carrying the child of an alien from the planet Neptune. This unacceptable conception could only have occurred if the girl was descended from Republican parents, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the alien is not a Christian and is in favor of the Democratic position of allowing women to murder unborn fetuses for stem cell research!

It has been determined that Bristol conceived the child while abducted and on the alien spaceship, but it is the belief of liberal extremists that her mother should have prevented the act by ensuring she was abducted along with her daughter or traveled to Neptune to purchase her own space ship to protect her daughter by acting as a contraceptive. We agree. Aliens are slimy. You should never leave your daughter alone with one.

Back to reality, we have read so much nonsense online on various blogs and forums regarding Sarah Palin since she got nominated, we are starting to think that if she were black like Obama, they would be saying she got the pigment in her skin by mating with a dry erase marker.

We are getting sick of all the nonsense. What is it about liberals that they have to create so much total idiotic nonsense and innuendo about a person? This is especially true, when most of what we are seeing is written by men accusing a WOMAN of irresponsibility with respect not even to her own body but that of another woman. What would a man know about a woman’s rights to her body? And aren’t liberal men supposedly in favor of a woman having exclusive rights to her body? Apparently not if she is Republican.

One argument we were presented with today was that Palin is an extremist and an evangelical Christian. This man actually stated that it was “hypocritical” of Sarah Palin to have “allowed” her daughter to get pregnant!! Not only didn’t he understand her religious background, he was totally ignorant of women in general and the process of conception. Last we checked, sperm and ova do not check with the grandmother first.

The ignorance is astounding, but what is even more astounding is the length to which these liberal extremists will go. We are seeing claims that are downright idiotic. One claim on the Television Without Pity Forum implied that Sarah Palin should have googled a medical opinion, and disagreed with her own pediatrician’s advice. When another contributor called them on their nonsense, the forum actually suspended the user for defending women’s rights!!

Now, don’t these individuals and liberal outlets understand that if any of what they are trying to claim is true, it would have been revealed already by a number of Republicans in Alaska that were exposed by Palin for illegitimate dealings in the first place? I don’t think they love the fact she kicked their Republican butts!!

Let’s think about the rumors and accusations so far:

1. Palin’s latest daughter is actually the child of her eldest daughter. To believe such stupidity, you would have to believe every doctor and every person they know in the world lied on their behalf. And of course, you have to start getting into the “We didn’t really land on the moon” or “The Holocaust never occurred” mentality, because you are one step away from total stupidity and prejudice.

2. That a photograph of Sarah Palin’s daughter at the proper angle was exclusive and conclusive evidence that her daughter Bristol had been pregnant rather than just having exited an all you can eat buffet.

3. That all the pictures of Sarah Palin pregnant were fabricated. She was carrying a pillow for months apparently.

4. Palin was already pregnant when she got married two decades ago. And what that has to do with this rumor we have no idea.

5. One woman claims to share a doctor with Sarah Palin. She says she thinks the baby is hers because she doesn’t believe their doctor would lie on behalf of Sarah Palin because everyone in town knows that Sarah Palin is insane.

OK, we have had about enough. This is getting so stupid and if the liberal camp, other than the only sane person in it, the Democratic Presidential candidate, does not realize how damaging it can get for the Democratic party falsifying rumors against a woman and her child, we have to believe that McCain will be elected, because Obama will be obliterated due to his association with total imbeciles.

McCain’s Healthcare Policy Out of Touch With Reality

Senator John McCain has a plan for healthcare that is out of touch with reality because it totally ignores the cost of healthcare, and it does not take into consideration cost of living differences.

McCain’s plan is to offer a $5000 refundable tax credit (what a rebate?) to families to help pay for healthcare. That sounds pretty good until you hear he is including the elimination of the exemption of employer-provided healthcare from income taxes.

Most plans that cover a family cost well in excess of $1000 a month in the US, and sometimes much more in areas that have a higher cost of living. So, if on average, one pays $15000 for healthcare a year and gets a $5000 credit, it would only be marginally different from getting the tax deduction in the first place. Anyone that pays more due to the cost of living would actually pay more taxes because their medical benefit would be taxed as income! This is inherently unfair and could push people towards the Obama camp, especially those in areas with a higher cost of living.

Even some groups that favor better health coverage for their union members are backing away from McCain. The United Mine Workers of America, for example, have endorsed the Democratic ticket specifically for this reason. “Mr. McCain’s plan would impose a tax on health care benefits that have been negotiated into employees’ contracts” said Cecil Roberts, union president.

A more fair plan, if McCain wishes to support commercial health care, is to require an increase in the taxes on profits from those companies providing healthcare. While many people believe that healthcare cost increases have hurt Americans, few have any idea how much they have benefited the US Healthcare Insurance companies such as Unitedhealth Group, Inc. the largest insurer in the US. Unitedhealth Group’s sales have steadily increased while their cost of revenue has dropped. It is good to know someone is benefiting from the high cost of health care, but not if our individual costs for that health care are to be taxed!

In the 2008 Presidential Election, We Don’t Care if We are Sexist, Racist or Biased

W e are what we are, fabricated over years of exposure to the realities of our lives.  If you were attacked or mugged by a member of a specific race, you likely harbor a prejudice against that race.  If you were impoverished, oppressed by or at war with a race of people, you likely have a bias against them.  And sexism touches us all from the “glass ceiling” to the destruction of “father’s rights” by the women’s movement to the horrors of rape.  There are so many other facets of racism and sexism that span the globe that one could write a book the size of “War and Peace” and not cover them all.

The sexist card is hard to totally understand.  Many men blame it on a women’s movement that has made every attempt to minimize the importance of men, especially fathers, in their children’s lives.  But sexism and abuse of women was around long before there was any solidified women’s movement.

Women, on the other hand, want equal wages and fair consideration, and because of physical differences, suffer at the hands of men.  Internationally, sexist acts against women are rampant and the indignations they suffer are broad-based.  In some societies, they are deprived of basic education to ensure their advancement in society is impaired and their social status retained as subservient to men.

In America, it is quite possible the pendulum has swung too far, when a female population that outnumbers men is treated like a minority.  But world-wide, that is anything but the truth.

The sexism issue is an important one from a political standpoint.  Statistically, women vote more than men, and women of voting age outnumber men.  One has to only go to political websites to find that almost every candidate addresses women’s rights, while few address the rights of men.  If you want the vote of women, you don’t mess with the sexist argument and if you want the vote of the aged, you don’t mess with Social Security and Medicare.  And what do we call the equivalent of racism against the aged?  Aged-ism?  Plenty of that against McCain, as there was against Reagan.

These two issues go way beyond what is stated here and they have become a central focal point of who we are as a nation.  Most of us do not wish to be classified as racist or sexist, but in some measure, we all are, whether we admit it or not.  In humor, Avenue Q, a Broadway Show has a tune they include in their performance, in which they sing, “Everyone’s a little bit racist…sometimes….”.  We would add sexist and just about every other bias to that.

And so enters politics, in which we expect the candidate to be a perfect reflection of our ideals.  As such, no politician wants to be considered sexist or racist, and yet, by their own nature they must be.  So, when you see one or the other play the racism or sexism card against their opponent, one has to examine the motivations behind their statements and the likely desire to cover up who they themselves truly are.

That aside, one thing to examine closely on the internet with respect to the Presidential Election is how both sides are playing the sexist and racist cards as we write this.

Here are the various claims:

1. If you don’t vote Republican, you are sexist.
2. If you don’t vote for Obama, you are racist.
3. The Republican’s choosing a woman as a VP candidate was sexist.
4. Had the Republicans chosen a black man as a VP candidate, that would be racist.
5. Obama choosing a white man as a running mate was racist.
6. If you think Obama is a Muslim, you are a racist.
7. If you voted for Obama over Hillary you are a sexist.
8. If you resent Obama’s choice of a male VP over Hillary, you are a sexist.
9. Obama was sexist for choosing a man as a VP when Hillary was available.
10. Bill was a pig for fooling around with Monica.

We have read some of these with disbelief in how twisted some people have become in classifying others as sexist or racist.  The reverse logic is the most twisted.  When one uses the logic that the only reason to choose a woman for a political office is because you are sexist, then, of course, that in and of itself is sexist against women by definition, the ultimate sexist catch 22, in which your opponent is damned if they do and damned if they do not.  When one says that you should never choose a black man for office because it would show you were trying to play the race card, again, you oppress all black men that were excellent choices for that office.

We would like to see this election steer clear of these issues, but we also know that other issues, such as Roe vs. Wade will find their way into the debates and they, in and of themselves have sexist overtones.

We just find most often, when one political candidate accuses the other of either sexism or racism, they are most often calling the kettle black.  It isn’t that simple, but in an effort to divide the nation into votes for their respective candidates, an attempt to simplify things into cut and dry categorizations is attempted, and life is not as simple as they paint it.

Our conclusion…

If a headline accuses the other side of being sexist or racist, realize it is most likely sensationalism to sway your vote.  You may, just may, find you want to read it with skepticism if not downright contempt, and possibly consider the authors’ desire to direct you away from their own weaknesses with respect to these broad-based issues.

Barack Obama Discards Women’s Rights, John McCain Embraces Them

In an unexpected turn of events, Senator Barack Obama, instead of choosing the best woman in the nation for a running mate, selected a man, Joe Biden. He slighted women in this action and he made light of Hillary Clinton’s strong following.

Hillary was gracious at the convention and supported Obama despite his inability to understand what he had done. Perhaps it is Obama’s sexist background that led him to the decision.

Senator John McCain selected Sarah Louise Heath Palin, the current governor of Alaska. She was the first woman to ever be elected to the governorship in Alaska, and she is the first female vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party.

We see this as a brilliant move by McCain. Sarah Palin is 44 years old, a great leader, with five children. She has an unheard of approval rating as governor that is the highest in Alaska’s history and in the 90s!! And it was her stand against a Republican establishment for unethical dealings in Alaska that won her that governorship, so this is hardly a partisan choice.

Obama made all the polite hypocritical comments we would expect to the press, while he immediately had his campaign take a swipe at Palin’s experience. Talk about calling the kettle black!! We think the Obama camp better wake up and start treating women with respect. Or his election in November is anything but guaranteed.