Presidential Debate: Whomever Wins, We all Lose
Posted on October 8th, 2008
Having watched last night’s debate with breathless anticipation (ok, that’s I lie - I was bored to sleep), it’s becoming clear that both the Obama and McCain campaigns have devolved into a rhetoric of repeated talking points. The sound of suction is deafening. Obama was on top form, showing his usual college cool, but for the first time he is showing signs of retreading the tires on his platform. Nothing new fresh or substantial came out of the debate, other than the revelation that John McCain apparently thinks Obama is one of his Grandchildren - “That one”.
John McCain won on creep factor. The disturbing way he stalked the room, lumbering like an agitated grizzly bear inspired no one. But it was the condescending tone he took with his audience that made me most uncomfortable - painting middle-Americans as ignorant. “You’ve probably never heard of Fannie Mea before this crisis”. Never heard of one of the world’s largest financial entities? And his lame attempt at identifying with the digital world showed his own generational disconnect, in his unworldly observation that “some of you here may have even used eBay”. Some of you? That’s like saying some of you may have even used a telephone. Pathetic.
So I walked away from the debate with no real sense that either candidate has answers to our country’s greatest problems, other than the usual political weeble wobbling and rhetoric that defines Washington culture. That’s not change I can believe in.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 7:24 am and is filed under Politics, Thought. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Home
About me
Send me a message
Subscribe
Facebook Profile
FriendFeed 
Pownce profile
Flickr gallery
Twitter profile
AIM/iChat
Messenger
Amazon Wishlist
Smashing Magazine
Design Shack
Screenfluent
Web creme
CSS Remix
CSS drive
CSS Import
CSS Based
CSS Mania
CSS Impress
Most Inspired
Link creme
Several years after his terrorist bombings, Bill Ayers received his professorship in the field of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He became involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), an ‘educational’ directive to radicalize American school children by reteaching them a revisionist version of American history (wherein Ayers attributes our government as being unjust, racist and imperialist), he was able to secure a $50 million grant. To administer these grant monies, Barack Hussein Obama was hired (Obama and Ayers knew each other at this time). These funds were increased to a final total of over $100 million which were, over a five year period, distributed by Obama to radical, left-wing extremist groups, such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). ACORN is a marxist organization promoting “affirmative action” lending practices by pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans to unqualified recipients under the guise of “fair housing”. They have been involved in many cases of voter fraud, as well. Principally, however, groups such as ACORN were instrumental in fighting to require mortgage lenders (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to push the envelope of irrational lending practices, and threats of legal action for “redlining” played an important role in their success, unjustly promoting a perception of racism.
In conjunction with a well documented history of predominantly democratic senators and house representatives protecting both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with congressional support (including Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer and Barack Hussein Obama), an assurance of government backing were these institutions to need help, has led America today to the edge of financial chaos. Aside from Dodd, Obama received more monies for campaign support (over $126,000) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than did any other member of Congress! Furthermore, it would seem appropriate at this point to question how it is that psyeudo-governmental agencies are legally able to in the first place extend finances as donations to political candidates? People need to be aware that it was in fact John McCain who sought to impose increased regulation on the mortgage lending industry, sponsoring a bill to do so in 2005. That bill was killed by democrats, the most outspoken of which was Barney Frank (D-MA, Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair). Recently, it was revealed that Frank had a gay-lover whom he referred to as his “spouse” that was an executive for Fannie Mae.
So, is it any surprise that, as part of the first “bailout” package that democrats in the House of Representatives brought forward sought to include a slush fund for ACORN? Were that initial House bill to have passed with republican support, then a provision to move 20% of all profits from the bailout into a “housing trust fund” (a fund which the democrats have traditionally used to infuse monies into political-action groups such as ACORN) would have carried.
http://zazzle.com/politix
politixican
October 8th, 2008
Yes of course, because elections are all about appearing attractive on TV and sounding fresh in debates. The most important thing is for the people to like you and be able to relate to you, nevermind the issues.
Taler
October 20th, 2008
I agree John McCain just rubs me the wrong way, every time he talks I am left feeling like someone has just tried to manipulate me. He has no substance. Mr McCain spouts off rhetoric without a clear message. The only real consistency in his message is his constant eye rolling and goofy faces. He appears to be a sarcastic, angry old man to me. In the beginning I was not all that happy with Obama, but after listening to him a bit more I am pleased he at least has a plan. I do hope you are wrong about one thing. I pray America doesn’t loose. We don’t have much more to loose.
Monica
October 31st, 2008
That made me smile.
Joshua Baker
November 3rd, 2008