“The members on this side of the isle have been attempting to work productively, positively on this issue.”

The very use of such weighted language, hyperbole, “takeover,” “death panels,” is neither productive, positive, or realistic.  This country does things very differently than the rest of the world, and we can discuss the pros and cons, but the implication that we’re going to create some sort of drastic, apocalyptic changes to the healthcare system does nothing to further the debate and only muddies the waters and heightens the anger of the vocal fringes who won’t accept any kind of compromise.

“I care for patients who bristle at the idea that the federal government should be involved in their healthcare.”

Medicare, despite all of its flaws, is an established and needed program where the federal government is involved in healthcare.  I don’t hear protesters calling for the dismantling of Medicare.  And, from personal experience, I know that the loss of my grandmother not long ago would’ve been far more painful for everyone if not for this type of government-supported safety-net.

“A trillion dollar plus bill.”

This is a common scare-tactic.  We’re talking a trillion dollars over a 10-year period, which works out to less than 1% of the GDP over that time.  This, to me, seems like a worthwhile investment, and that price tag also does not take into account the serious savings that we could achieve by reforming the system.

“It kills jobs. It will destroy, DESTROY healthcare as we know it.”

What will kill jobs is a US that leaves business alone to shoulder the constantly rising costs of healthcare when the rest of the world lets business off the hook.  That lack of competitiveness has already strangled our auto industry, and threatens all major US industry as health costs continue to skyrocket.

That “Grand-Scheme Chart” Price holds up with “the government between you and your doctor” drafted by the GOP is another scare-tactic.  The system we have now is ridiculously convoluted as is, and we are the only industrialized nation where people routinely go bankrupt due to healthcare costs.

“Remove from them and their families the opportunities to make the most personal healthcare decisions.”

Do families really get the opportunity to make the most personal healthcare decisions now, with denied claims and in-network-only coverage?

There are good ideas and bad ideas when it comes to healthcare reform, but reform is needed.  Knee jerk reactions and theatrical resistance will get us nowhere!

A swifter boat struck the dock this weekend and at the helm, a pained John McCain. Playing with matches, they matched Barack Obama with the word “terrorism,” stoking the basest, most baseless beliefs of the GOP base. As the crowds grew more and more rowdy, McCain’s 1st mate, Sarah Palin, didn’t even blink. Of course, according to her, not blinking is a sign of “confidence,” “readiness” and “knowing that you can’t blink.”

This same vice-presidential candidate who admonished Joe Biden for “pointing backward” when discussing the happening-now policies of the Bush administration, spent the week trying to link Obama to incidents of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The McCain Campaign’s tactics and latest ads are some of the ugliest in presidential campaign history. It is downright despicable, knowing Obama to be the target of a racist whisper campaign, to put his image in an ad next to the Pentagon, repeating the word “terrorist,” calling him “dangerous,” and asking if he is “too risky for America.” Sadly, there’s nothing the Secret Service can do about character assassination.

How could John McCain have slipped so low? McCain was the subject of phony “polling” calls in 2000, when South Carolina Republicans were asked if they would still vote McCain “if they knew that he had fathered a black child?” McCain probably would have learned a lesson from that incident of race baiting, but I suppose that would require “pointing backward.”

Perhaps he just learned the wrong lesson when he watched the Bush-Rove team, the guys behind the whisper campaign, win. McCain said of those who propagated the false rumors, “I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those.” The economy must still be alright in hell, because it seems as if that special place is adding an extension.

On Friday, a number McCain supporters’ anti-Obama sentiment had reached a boiling point. At a rally in Lakeville, MN, an uncomfortable McCain had to pause more than once to defend the opponent he’s spent millions to shiv. After asking the crowd to “show respect,” a woman took the microphone saying she “can’t trust Obama … he’s an arab.” To which McCain responded, “No ma’am. He’s a decent family man citizen…”

For once, McCain was telling the truth. Barack Obama is indeed a decent family man citizen. Given the negative and deceitful campaign he’s running, however, it is becoming clearer and clearer that John McCain is not.

The newsstands look like the cover of the Beatles’ 1966 classic “Sgt. Pepper,” only the band is made of just one face: Sarah Palin. Don’t worry, America is beginning to get sick of her. By election time, her novelty worn off, she’ll return to the frozen tundra, and the only ones who will fear her will be the moose.

“Let me give you a little of what John would call ‘straight-talk’ … friends, if John McCain is just another partisan Republican, then I’m Michael Moore’s favorite Democrat. And I’m not! And I think you know that I’m not!”

The man has a knack for comic timing and little else.

But who cares to listen to Joe Lieberman? As a Democrat, he failed. As an Independent, he’s a failure. As a Republican, he’s a joke. At the RNC, the self-proclaimed “Democratic Independent” was applauded and celebrated with chants of “Country First, Country First” to his painfully partisan speech.

The following night, a better clown entered the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul. Hilarity ensued.

Rudy Giuliani had the crowd in stitches. After a cliffs notes version of John McCain’s time at the Hanoi Hilton, he tried to offer contrast with Barack Obama and hit hard with his first big joke.

“You have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education … He worked as a community organizer.”

To this, the crowd burst into uproarious laughter. Hysterics brought on by the line “community organizer.” Giuliani actually had to pause and move away slightly from the podium as the audience shared in a good belly laugh.

Watching the Republican National Convention feels like watching an episode of Jackass, only the RNC has ten thousand more jackasses.

What again is funny about community organizing? What’s funny about devoting oneself to those less fortunate? The Republicans have a truly twisted sense of humor.

“A small town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer’ that has actual responsibilities!” riffed Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a half hour later.

What we saw during the Giuliani and Palin speeches were ugly scenes. In an arena packed tight with white, rural faces, entire sections in cowboy hats, clutching signs reading “Country First,” they ridiculed a young black man’s service to an underprivileged urban community.

If you want to criticize young black community organizers, why stop with Barack Obama? Dr. Martin Luther King, according to Sarah Palin, apparently had no “actual responsibilities.” Just think what he could’ve accomplished as the mayor of Wasilla.

“Country First” is not just another Republican campaign slogan. “Country First” is a targeted message. The word “country” has a number of meanings. Let’s see what our friends, Merriam and Webster, have to say:

1: an indefinite usually extended expanse of land: region <miles of open country>

2 a: the land of a person’s birth, residence, or citizenship b: a political state or nation or its territory

3 a: the people of a state or district: populace b: jury c: electorate

4: rural as distinguished from urban areas <prefers the country to the city>

5: country music

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country

Country does not just mean ‘Nation.” The Republicans will not say it explicitly, but their new battle cry is an attempt to evoke an old battle. Rural vs. urban, white vs. black.

“Country First,” the RNC’s choice of country music between speakers, and the choice of rural Governor Sarah Palin are all part of a calculated Republican attempt to continue dividing the country for the sake of winning elections.

The Republicans think they are safe ridiculing community organizing given that in small towns, there is no need for community organizing. The communities are already organized by local governments and local church congregations. We can all agree that there are great differences between our country’s urban and rural communities, but does this mean we cannot share common goals and respect each others’ struggles? With one party claiming to be the only one that puts “country first,” it becomes difficult to even have a dialogue.

When the Republicans laugh at noble causes, the message they are sending and the image they are letting slip out is simply dreadful. They are desperate and defensive, petty and pathetic. They’re having a good laugh at their party now, but this election is no laughing matter, and there’s no way these clowns can win.

When asked how many houses he had during a Politico interview, McCain responded “I’m not sure. I’ll have my staff get to you.” McCain isn’t the only one who is confused. His staff said, “At least four.” New York Senator Charles Schumer says six. The Obama campaign, in an ad hoc ad, went with seven. And ProgressiveAccountability.org, which must be credible given the word “accountability” is in its name, has been quoted around the web with evidence that the McCains own “at least 10 houses.”

All of this is certainly problematic for McCain. It is going to be difficult for Republicans to paint Barack Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with the working class voter given the new focus on the McCains’ wealth.

The way this story has heated up on liberal blogs, there are probably a great deal of high-fives and “terrorist fist jabs” being exchanged among Obama supporters. Is this the “new style of politics” we were promised? It smells about as new as a month-old fish stick.

If the new politics were in effect, McCain would never have been asked such a question, and Obama would certainly have never put out an advertisement ridiculing McCain’s response.

In a hurriedly produced television ad, the Obama campaign precedes McCain’s latest gaffe with this quote: “I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” dated August 20th, 2008. The announcer follows with a “hmmm.”

It is upsetting that Barack Obama approved this message. Here’s the quote in context:

INGRAHAM: And now look: the dollar’s weak, we have serious competition from abroad, government is running a deficit. … What are the Republicans going to do if China ultimately overtakes us economically and does that matter?

MCCAIN: I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But we’re still the most innovative, the most productive, the greatest exporter, the greatest importer.We’ve got terribly big challenges now, whether it be housing or employment or so many of the other — health care. It’s very, very tough times. It’s very tough. (ThinkProgress.org)

Clearly, McCain is not so out of touch that doesn’t know we are facing very, very tough times. His assertion that the fundamentals are strong almost sound like the old man has got a hint of hope in the economy.

But back to McCain’s mansions … “How many houses do you own?” really is a “gotcha” question when you’re married to a baroness and real estate is a form of investment. Does it speak to his ineptitude that he wasn’t prepared for the question in the first place? Sure. Is his personal wealth relevant to how we feel about the man? Absolutely. But is it relevant to his governing, experience, or proposals?

McCain’s latest gaffe, while telling, is ineffectual to the “issues” the voters have been demanding solutions for. The dream of a civil, if not academic debate on these issues has long ago been abandoned. After all the problems brought to light during the seven long years of the Bush administration, the dialogue turns to McCain’s seven houses. At this point, the voter seems powerless to effect the debate.

The last person I want to be defending right now is a snake like John McCain. He’s run a disgraceful campaign, and he and his people have been the main catalyst for the ugliness we see now. Still, he never suggested he could change the way politicians campaign. Obama did. By jumping on this gaffe, Obama, who looks, speaks, and seems so much different, may be showing that he too is more of the same. Or to quote McCain, “That’s not change we can believe in.” Obama owes the people who have fought on his behalf better.

A variety of outrage you don’t typically find on American shelves is that directed toward the United States military itself. I know, I know, “Don’t you support the troops?” you ask. The answer is “Duh.” But still, how in the hell does an organization with an approximately $626 billion dollar 2007 combined budget do such a piss poor job? Yes, we can blame Bush/Cheney and the civilian leadership for so many egregious errors, but what about holding the military accountable?

Today’s military has gone from the trenches to the gutter. The once proud force; decedents of patriots, victors in two theaters during the bloodiest war in history, the U.S. military has never appeared more vulnerable. Over the past 60 years, a time of tumultuous change around the world, the customs and tactics of the Military has remained largely stagnant. America’s Boys, in three grand failures (Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq), have proven their fallibility toward guerrilla armies and their inability to adjust to the unexpected.

The question is, who’s holding the reigns and who’s asleep at the wheel? How could $626 billion (I’d say “give or take,” be we all know it’s only “give”) not yield better results in our armed conflicts, regardless of how misguided their intentions?

It is the combination of too many chefs in the mess hall and too many meals gone cold. The various branches of the military and intelligence agencies were not the work of a creator or a creative group of founding fathers. They evolved, each to meet a new, unique and unplanned set of circumstances. In doing so, there was the creation of a never-before-seen level of bureaucracy and redundant systems. Funny how you never hear the conservatives discussing this sort of big government.

This creates a hugely expensive and cumbersome organization. There’s no doubt who spends the most money on Defense in the world, but the U.S.’s failing have left doubt if the strength of its fleet is more than a mirage.

For an example of the Armed Forces on a micro-level, think General Motors. It’s fun to refer to General Motors as a micro-anything! A huge, multi-teared, multi-brand behemoth, the company has been in decline for years against smaller, but better run competitors. They couldn’t keep up with changing demand to produce less gas guzzlers, couldn’t keep the promises to its work force, and couldn’t compete in a global market.

And, like its mini-me, the U.S. military is too large to change swiftly with a changing world. The military’s cultural conservatism and size keep it decades behind the times, leading to a lack of fresh ideas and occasional bouts of group psychosis. Its culture is one that has become particularly effective in keeping large numbers critical thinkers out of its ranks. This is truly unfortunate, knowing who has the guns.

All of this has turned the most funded military in history into the Rodey Dangerfields of the global power struggle. This lack of faith worldwide has caused fear and panic, posturing instead of diplomacy.

Russian overuse of force this week in Georgia and South Ossetia sends a clear message. I’d call it “bold,” but there’s nothing bold about destroying civilian apartment buildings in grand displays of brute force. The stronger power is expected to be bigger diplomatically, not the bigger bully. Ordinary Russians should be ashamed that they allowed their country, after celebrating the fall of communism, to revert to a bullshit “democracy,” with Putin as dictator. We should all be ashamed of our failure to see any of this coming and our inability to act in any way.

Russia’s despicable handling of Georgia, the deaths of thousands of civilians and its bizarre land-grab, only seem possible when you realize what they’ve realized: that the U.S. is all talk. In the 80′s and 90′s when the U.S. military seemed indestructible, attacks on its allies like this would not have seemed viable. Today, however, its limitation are airing like dirty laundry. The military looks exhausted in their fatigues.

If the U.S. is going to make strides toward creating a less dangerous and more constructive international environment, it can no longer afford the hulking mess that its military has become. The U.S. military needs to self-direct itself toward a stronger performance with less necessary resources. Remember when the buzz was about the CIA potentially destroying interrogation tapes? My question is: why the hell are these guys using tapes!? Cassette tapes in the 21st Century? It’s the digital era!

Our Armed Forces and intelligence agencies need to be diligent and attempt to create an effective fleet that understands and respects modern ideas in group management, education, and psychology. They shouldn’t just strive to out-do bin Laden, but to out-Google Google. “The Few, the Proud, the Brave” should make us proud. For the largest single chunk of American tax payer money, I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

This country has a soft spot for wispy-haired old men with sour dispositions. Maybe Old Spice makes us nostalgic. Maybe we are secretly looking forward to the time when we will be so old, no one will flinch at our crazed misstatements; so old that we can wear our pants at any height we see fit; so old that we’ll have the freedom to be crotchety.

Dick Cheney, the reigning King of Crotchety, has had his throne threatened in the last few weeks. John McCain has been getting worked up (or as the ever suave Obama would say, “exercised”) over Obama, his treatment in the press, his reception abroad and his celebrity. I can’t say I’m surprised at John McCain’s reactions; these seem like relatively commonplace complaints from people in their 70′s.

What is baffling is McCain’s response to Obama’s very rational suggestion that we, as a country, focus on our energy consumption. McCain’s campaign has attempted to mock Obama on a no-brainer: keeping our nation’s automobile tires properly inflated.

It’s strange that McCain, a bona fide senior citizen, would take issue with this suggestion. Everyone knows it is America’s Mercury Grand Marquis and Buick Regal owners that are most meticulous about oil changes, tune-ups, and tire pressure.

At a town-hall in Wisconsin, McCain both embraced and took exception with Obama’s tire-pressure suggestion. “[Obama] suggested we put air in our tires to save on gas. My friends, let’s do that, but do you think that’s enough to break our dependence on foreign oil? I don’t think so.”

The following week, McCain’s campaign began circulating “Obama’s Energy Plan” tire-pressure gauges. Oh, John McCain, I’d say “lol,” but you have no idea what that means. I’m all for a light-hearted exchange of ideas, but mocking some things, like rational conservation, just doesn’t seem all that funny.

Is there no subject clear-cut enough that the campaigns can agree? On such an unambiguous topic like tire pressure, McCain had the opportunity to be civil, bipartisan, and rational. He could’ve said, “My opponent has a good point.” No need for a rebuttal.

Instead, McCain’s campaign has decided to be adversarial when it’s completely unnecessary. It’s “old politics” from an old man, and at this point, it’s gotten old.

The campaign reacted similarly in the face of the latest issue of The New Yorker. The cover features a cartoon of Barack Obama in Muslim garb giving a fist-pound to Michelle who is dressed as a terrorist. It all takes place in the oval office with a portrait of Osama Bin Laden and a flag burning in the fire place.

And, boy, am I offended.

Now, I’m not offended by the cartoon itself. I actually find it quite amusing! It is clear that The New Yorker is casting light on the ridiculousness of all the false claims leveled against Obama. Comedian Bill Maher put it best, “If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?”

I am offended by the knee-jerk reaction offered by the Obama campaign. Spokesman, Bill Burton, described the cover by saying “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

I disagree. Comedy, by design, is not intended to be taken seriously. Taking offense at a cartoon, regardless of intention or context, demonstrates a level of close-mindedness that is all too common in our culture and politics; Remember the false-controversy spurred by John Kerry’s “botched joke?”

It is actually somewhat telling that the Obama campaign would take offense … you know who does get offended by cartoons?

Muslims.

I kid, I kid. Seriously, though, laughing at the ridiculous claims made about Obama are the easiest way to neutralize them. If the Obama campaign, rather than calling the cartoon “tasteless,” were to say, “We get it, it’s satire,” then they would be offering a new kind of politics.

The electorate is not comprised of children ready to cry at any instance of name-calling. Don’t insult us by feigning insult.

While political diversions of every flavor have kept our eyes off the ball, serious problems like the $5 trillion in debt racked up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seem to come as a surprise. The burst of the housing bubble was predictable, and the mess we’re in preventable, but the rational voices have all been washed out by a media and public too concerned with controversy, however much a stretch it is.

It is imperative that the issues facing the dollar, our banking institutions, and our federal debt take center stage. Every news story about what Bernie Mac said or didn’t say takes our attention off what Freddie Mac did or didn’t do. If we’re going to get ourselves out of this mess, we’re going to need a sense of humor. It’s time to put all kidding aside.

While most of the country remembers McMahon as the Oates to Johnny Carson’s Hall and his prolonged “Here’s Johnny,” a large segment of Obama’s youth voting bloc knows McMahon for a very different phrase: “You may have already won!”

For years, Ed McMahon was the face of the American Family Sweepstakes. In commercial after commercial, mailing after mailing, yellow envelope after yellow envelope, they sold false hopes of big bucks while banking millions of subscriptions. “Hope” was a key ingredient to their success.

The Obama campaign, after encouraging a great deal of genuine hope in the electorate, has now settled for a far more McMahonian form. In a mass-email titled “Big announcement,” Campaign Manager, David Plouffe, announced that the campaign is basically running a sweepstakes.

“If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them.”

Sure, “David Plouffe” sounds like a game show host name, but seriously? An all-expenses paid trip for two? How about a year’s supply of Rice-a-roni?

People have been donating in droves to this campaign, not because they expect anything in return personally, but because they think it will yield dividends for the country. Campaign donations need to be earned by the campaign and certainly not gambled.

The AP reports that the Minnesota Gambling Authority is questioning the legality of this fundraising method. According to Minnesota law, only nonprofit charities can conduct raffles. The Obama campaign responded that it is not a raffle in that the winners will not be drawn at random but chosen by the campaign. It is hard to tell if this is better or worse.

But more than questioning the legality, Obama’s supporters need to question this method’s prudence. Garnering campaign donations is important business, but selling dreams of “a front row seat to history,” and building false hopes around Obama’s amazing cult of personality is not worth the $5+ donations, however many come in. Real hope is bigger than that.