Obama and McCain are both endorsed by terrorist-related groups

23 10 2008

The first candidate to receive an endorsement linked to actual terrorists was John McCain. About a week ago, a message on an al-Qaeda supporting Web site explained why McCain would be a better president than Obama when it concerned al-Qaeda.

They put up a pretty good argument as to why McCain would be better for their group. They said he would continue the wars in the Middle East and would inadvertently encourage more people to sign up with terrorist organizations. These things would probably happen, but McCain isn’t the only one receiving bad support. Barack Obama also recently received an uninvited endorsement.

Obama recently received an endorsement from Iran through the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani.

He said Obama would be more flexible and rational than McCain, which makes sense. Obama has said in the past that he would consider talks with Iran without preconditions.

Larijani also threw in that there is no way the U.S. would attack Iran right now, which means Americans shouldn’t take something like that into as much consideration when picking a candidate.

I don’t see how someone in America could begin to unravel what goes on in these people’s minds before they announce their endorsements. They have to know that Americans are going to look down on their endorsements, so why would they ever give us a chance to make them public?

This leads me to believe that there’s at least a chance they endorse the person they actually don’t want to win. It would make sense, but then again, it’s definitely not a sure thing.

Since we can’t really determine why these endorsers decided to pick the candidate they did, we should probably just throw out their opinions. We can’t really trust what they say, they’ve both lied and hid information from us before.

These endorsements are non-stories that the media shouldn’t spend too much time on. These organizations obviously have agendas, and the news is just giving them free advertising.

At least make Iran and al-Qaeda pay for their air time like everyone else who wants to shove their opinion on us.





“Real Virginia” may be a new key meaningless term for McCain

19 10 2008

Recently, John McCain’s aide said that McCain was strong in “real Virginia.” This looks like it could become another one of those terms that politicians use to rile-up support while the words don’t really mean anything.

Maybe "real Virginia" should be added to the cloud

Maybe "real Virginia" should be added to the cloud.

“Real” Virginia is anyone who helps encompass what Virginia is as a state. That includes everyone who lives there, not just the people who support McCain, so I don’t see what they could really be getting at by the term.

McCain’s aide, Nancy Pfotenhauer, said that the poeple who live in the more populated areas in the northern parts of Virginia are commuters and people moving from D.C. who don’t count as “real” Virginians.

This is different than the southern par, which is more rural.

It’s pretty well known that republicans do better in rural areas, so why create a term that pins down those in Virginia? The logical reason seems to be one that’s a little slimy.

Instead of getting people in Virginia to support McCain by making him hear what their needs are, and helping them with their problems, the big strategy is to back-handily lie to them. By using the term “real Virginia,” all McCain does is instill a sense of ownership and pride in the rural south of the state.

If someone told me I lived in the “real California,” I would feel pretty proud of myself, but at the same time, it doesn’t really help me with my bills. I don’t really care if I live in the “real” part of the state, if the state is still getting screwed over.

When the “real” parts of the states are hurting just bad or more than the “fake” parts, then what’s the real difference? The only difference is one part of the state is going to have a chunk swayed to vote for someone who did nothing more than give them an empty compliment.

This is the video:





100,000 people attend Obama rally in Missouri

18 10 2008

Just so you know, I really try to be unbiased, but sometimes one campaign has all the news. I can’t help but notice all of the firsts that have happened in the Obama campaign. Not only is he the first black president (potentially), but a lot of his ideas are new, answering questions with specific answers is new, and his new rally in Missouri brought in record breaking numbers. The only first in the McCain campaign is Sarah Palin being a woman, but that hasn’t really worked out like they’d hoped.

The photo of 100,000 people waiting to hear Obama speak is amazing. But you have to ask yourself, “why would all of these people travel to see Obama in Missouri?” No matter what you think the answer is, you’d have to admit that whatever brought all of them there, it was pretty powerful.

Obama is bringing out more emotion and feeling in his followers. He makes them believe that he is actually going to change things. McCain says he’s going to change this as well, but for some reason, not as many people believe him.

Why is that?

Maybe because he’s been in Washington for 30 years and things haven’t changed much while he’s been there. If you can’t change things to they way you want them in 30 years, how do you expect to do it in four?

It seems like, as long as people go out and vote, there is no question Obama has more followers to vote for him. However, that seems to be the case in every election. There are more democrats in this country than republicans, there are more people supporting Obama than McCain. But for some reason, republicans are always in the running when election night comes.

This is because there’s a big difference between saying things and actually doing them. Democrats always talk big, and hopefully Obama can back up what he’s saying.





Joe the Plumber was linked to GOP scandal before talking to Obama

17 10 2008

“Joe the Plumber” has been found after the debate last night, and he’s not making things look any better for Barack Obama or John McCain.

The plumber the candidates were talking about in last night’s debate turns out to be a man by the name of Joe Wurzelbacher.

At an Obama event in Ohio, Wurzelbacher told Obama that he’s planning on buying a business that earns over $250,000 a year. He then asked Obama, “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

Years before that question sparked much of the final presidential debate of 2008, a relative of Wurzelbacher’s was involved in a scandal with McCain.

The Gawker article says, “Keating’s son-in-law, Robert Wurzelbacher (not a very common last name) served a 40-month prison sentence in 1993 in connection with Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan collapse.” According to the article, McCain was investigated in the matter, but was let off with a slap on the wrist.

It’s hard to believe that Joe the Plumber just happened to be connected to the Keating scandal, and Joe’s already become somewhat of a talking head for republicans. It’s starting to look like this thing was -to some extent- set up by someone.

Wurzelbacher isn’t a very common last name.

There is a collection of articles and fast facts about the situation here.





ACORN and Obama: not voter fraud

16 10 2008

There are people out there who are trying to link Obama to a couple of bad eggs who worked for the community organization ACORN. This organization goes out and gets people to register to vote. They’ve been able to get over 1.3 million people to register and have about 13,000 people working for them.

It’s hard to believe that any organization dealing with so many people would be able to keep everything perfect. There’re going to be a couple of people in there that are going to try to take advantage of the system, or laze around and do their jobs poorly.

Evil Army ACORN, watch out, they might register voters!

Evil Army ACORN, watch out, they might register voters!

Just because some people at the bottom suck at their jobs, that’s no reason to attack presidential candidates.

I couldn’t find anything linking Obama directly to those who committed violations, just the organization in general. The only link McCain is going off of is that Obama has supported the organization in the past.

There’s one problem with McCain’s accusation: McCain has also supported ACORN in the past.

“It is clear for us to see that John McCain was for ACORN before he was against ACORN,” ACORN national president, Maude Hurd, said in an issued response.

ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. I thought “reform” was one of McCain’s meaningless key terms. Hurd said McCain supported ACORN as recently as 2006.

It’s starting to become clear that ACORN had some bad nuts fall from the tree, but when you look into who has supported the organization, it doesn’t seem like any one party benefited more. It isn’t Obama’s fault if newly registered voters support Obama more, welcome to a different generation.

And even if Obama was directly related to the violators in ACORN, that would be voter registration fraud, not voter fraud. There’s a big difference: one pumps up the numbers of how many voters it looks like are registered, and the other destroys elections by changing the outcome.

The debate last night made it seem like the two were one and the same.

Check out FOX News’ piece on it, they also try to blame the bailout on ACORN. Keep in mind, McCain has also supported this group.





Obama and Ayers compared to Palin and Chryson

15 10 2008

When you start diving into a politician’s political background, you’ll no doubt find some dirt you can use against them. There isn’t a single successful clean politician, because the system requires lots of dirty money and dirty support to get to the top. My definition of “dirty” being things that are accepted in a political campaign based on the understanding that the company giving the dirty stuff will be protected in some way.

John McCain and (more so) Sarah Palin have been bringing up Barack Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers for some time now. This is a justified, legitimate point to bring up from Obama’s past, but they are blowing it out of proportion. Whenever you hear the words “domestic terrorist,” you’re first thought should be, “why would they call him/her that?” not “what is there justification?” It’s easy to justify why you do something, but it’s more difficult and credible when you actually have a powerful reason for doing it.

While this connection between Obama and Ayers has been out for a while, there is now a new connection between a “domestic terrorist” and a candidate on a ticket this November. Now we have the Palin-Chryson connection to look into.

Mark Chryson is the chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party. He is in favor of Alaska succeeding from the nation, and also recognizes 30 other state’s claims of succession. He carries a gun wherever he goes, has a basement full of them, and says lots of Alaskans have lots of guns for similar reasons, according to the Salon article.

While Ayers had a radical movements in the sixties, what has he done lately? Well, lately it looks like he is a professor at the respectable University of Illinois at Chicago, and doesn’t care for the press he’s getting for his past from, the Chicago Tribune managed to get a word out of him.

Pretty much the only thing Ayers would say about the situation is, “Life happens.”

Chryson on the other hand, is still going on camera trying to get more publicity for his radical movements (note, they are not in his past). And although Sarah Palain was never an official member of the AIP, her husband Todd was, and Chryson considers her a personal friend.

If you’re a politician and you’re planning and digging up someone’s background, it would be a good idea to check your ticket and make sure there aren’t similar offenses involving someone in it. If the Chryson stuff gets enough publicity (why wouldn’t it?), then the stuff Palin and McCain said about Ayers might just come back to bite them in the ballot.





Barack Obama takes campaigning to a new level with Xbox 360, how will he be attacked?

14 10 2008

Obama’s camp has promised change, and that’s what they have delivered – at least when it comes to new campaigning methods. Recent sightings of an Obama ad in the EA game “Burnout Paradise” have the media outlets tweaking out.

Obama on Xbox, thanks to the source

Obama on Xbox 360

It’s cool people are at least trying to make this tedious election season a little more interesting. The fact that Obama’s camp went through with this shows they have a little bit of an open mind.

There are also those people who see this as an opening to hit Obama with another jab to try to take him down a peg, which isn’t completely unfounded. Some places are bringing up quotes Obama has said in the past, including, “… turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children…”

It’s tough to take that quote seriously when he turns around and advertises in the video games he doesn’t want kids to play. He wants kids to put down the video games, but does he have any idea how many more copies of “Burnout Paradise” will be played because of his face in the game and the publicity that brings?

This is small potatoes when you compare it to other contradictions in the election season. A qualified Palin, friendly McCain, civil Biden and humble Obama are already paradoxes that have been introduced this election.

When it comes down to it, the video game campaign is a good idea. Of course some people will attack him, because when you’re losing, you have to find a way to score some more points and get ahead. I just don’t think it’s going to work in this instance.

And if McCain tries to look young, talk about video games and get some of this demographic, then Comedy Central will have some good material for a while.

Now Obama just has to hope that those gamers will get out of the house on election day. I doubt they will if they’re in an important spot in the game their playing.

Here’s a page with a collection of links to all the stories about Obama on Xbox 360