The Cosmopolitan Blog

Are you an economist? I’m not. And we’ve already established that I fell asleep in finance classes. So i’m in NO way qualified to understand the differences in stump messages between the Obama and the McCain campaigns when they talk about taxes, mortgages, and other economy issues. Are you?

In the last debate, when speaking about taxes, McCain said Obama would raise taxes. Obama said McCain would raise taxes. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO’S LYING? The truth is, they both are. They twist the truth to make a point. Today on CNN, i heard that in the past, BOTH McCain and Obama have voted for the highest tax increases in history.

As i mentioned before, it’s about how well each candidate convinces YOU that they will solve your problem. And so, if that’s the case, then it’s not about the economy, stupid, it’s about personality! It’s about how good they are at convincing you that their view on economy is better than the other’s. The truth is, neither will probably do anything that will ACTUALLY put more money in the average Joe-6-pack’s pocket.

This reminds me of Lou Dobbs’ favorite saying “Doesn’t anyone deserve a government that works?”. My answer: no, Lou, that’s the least of the candidate’s concern. You’re right, Lou, we should all be independants!

*Note to self* Must stop quoting Lou Dobbs, i don’t actually like the man!

Some people say elections have nothing to do with the issues, it’s about personality. So let’s talk about it.

Against Obama: Main criticism of Obama states that he seems unapproachable. He’s not trustworthy, because we don’t understand him, he’s not like you, me and the neighbor who struggle every day with bills and 2 jobs. He doesn’t joke as much, show vulnerability or open himself up to criticism. He uses complicated words when he talks. He’s overly educated. He’s spent more time getting educated than getting experience. He tries to hide his inexperience

Pro McCain (and Palin): we understand them. He looks like he could be my neighbor. He’s a joker, this makes him seem friendly and approachable. He has experience. He’s been around and has fought for our country for decades. She’s a regular mom who juggles family and work, this is a victory for the average person, this is proof that the average person can make it to the White House. She believes in God and her life is guided by God. That makes us one of us. She’s from the heartland. She WILL therefore fight for us and our needs, because she understands and has the same needs.

COSMOCHICK’S VIEW:

Obama obviously has a lot of education. He knows a lot from what he’s read in books and studied. That makes him smarter than me. He is about to run for the highest office in the land. The LEAST I would want, for that person, is to be smarter than me.

Look, if McCain seems approachable and looks like my neighbor, then that’s awesome. Let’s have a beer together. If McCain is an expert on matters such as war, because he’s a hero and has fought in one and got captured and all, then that’s awesome. Let’s put him in charge of what he knows, that specific area of expertise. Oh, wait… his expertise… hmmm… He came fifth FROM THE BOTTOM in the academy. He has never voted for additional healthcare for war veterans. May I just remind you that in ‘00 and in ‘04, you voted for a guy you could related to. You happy with where that got you?

Bottom Line: Lots of money and time goes into electing the no1 person in this country. Therefore I want to know that i got the best person money can buy. I WANT to know that the person is super-smart, super-educated, super-qualified. I don’t want to think of him as my equal, i want him to be superior to me. And if that sounds elistist, than so be it.

The man is the leader of the free world for the love of goodness! In fact, as Andy says in a comment to his own post, that is, by definition, elite. So what about Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, you ask? It’s called rhetoric and inspirational speaking. Was he lying? No. He still meant that the leader needs to be the most qualified for the job, not a guy you want to have a beer with.

Some perspective on the current race to the White House: this is a game. it’s called politics. There are winners, and there are losers. But no, the winner will not be the candidate who becomes POTUS and the looser the one who doesn’t. That’s where we’ve all got it wrong if we think that’s what happens. The winners and the losers have already been decided.

Obama and McCain and play a game. We suffer the consequences.

Are the candidates evil because they play this game? No, they have to play the game. Politics and government leadership, in any country, works this way. Let’s not over simplify this matter by thinking that all you need to do is have honor and be a good guy, and people will realize that and vote for you. It’s simple maths and economics:

If you don’t have money, you can’t fund a campaign. If you can’t fund a campaign, you won’t get noticed. if you don’t get noticed, no one votes for you. If no one votes for you, you don’t become president. So how do you get money? You go around and promise stuff to people.

They then give you their money. But you need to promise so many people so much stuff that some stuff conflicts with the other stuff you promised. And sometimes you promise stuff with more emphasis to bigger companies because they give you more money, so that you can continue appearing places in order to promise more stuff to more people. Are you GETTING how this works now???

My point? My point is this: everytime we make the argument that one candidate is better than the other, than one candidate is being more truthful than the other, that one candidate wants to fight for the average-Joe more than the other, it’s bull. They all play the same game, and use different tactics to convince you that they don’t. McCain, Obama, same game. So why do I support Obama over McCain? Because Obama sold his lies to me more convincingly than McCain.

That’s why you and I, if we decided to start campaigning and did all we could to remain squeacky clean, if we promised to run a campaign where we would only ever promise something if we had PROOF that we could deliver, well then, you and I could NEVER get anywhere.

I just re-read this post. The fact that i’ve never come closer to sounding like Lou Dobbs scares the living crap out of me.

Part 2 of my effort at fairness, looking at the serious criticism of Obama’s campaign (and of Obama himself).

Issue 2: The ACORN Issue

Arguably, this is a more serious issue than the Ayers issue, I think that was acknowledged by all parties.

1. CLAIM: ACORN has created fake voter registrations by using fake names: for example names of people who are actually deceased, even the name Jimmy Johns, the name of a restaurant where no actual Jimmy Johns worked at, they even created fake registrations for the entire Dallas Cowboys football team. Since Obama is linked to this firm in some way, and since 1+1=3, Obama is rigging the election.
2. FACTS:
   • ACORN has been under investigation for over four years
   • ACORN has created over 5,000 fake voter registrations in at least 6 states and continued to do so until a few days ago when it became a national issue
   • Obama’s campaign used ACORN’s services (it was actually a subsidiary, but fine, let’s simplify) during the primary campaign to register voters at a fee of $800,000.
   • ACORN endorsed Obama for president
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Obama used the services of a firm under investigation: YES
   • Should he have? NO
   • Would it have affected the outcome of the primaries NO the number of registrations was a few thousand, Obama won by much more
   • Does it make a difference that ACORN endorsed him? NOT REMOTELY, do you know how many companies endorse each candidate, 1/2 the time without the candidates even knowing it?
   • Will this affect this election? NO, since a. they’ve been caught, b. all registrations (fake or non) coming from them have been pulled, c. this was not actual votes, it was registrations for new voters to be able to vote

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

While I think this is a more serious issue than Ayers, because Obama’s campaign is to blame for having hired a firm under investigation, the consequences of his actions are, well, non-consequential. Again, this is a political tactic. McCain is trying to put doubts in voters minds by lining up a bunch of things that will make you question his judgment. What McCain doesn’t tell you is that he’s done just as bad, that it’s all part of the game of politics, and that even HE (McCain) doesn’t think this are big deal issues, he’s just grabbing at straws.

However, if you feel that your trust in Obama has gone because a guy who bombed the Pentagon organized a meeting to launch Obama’s campaign, and because he used the services of a firm under investigation, then you have the right to feel that way. That means McCain’s argument was persuasive. And i can’t fault you for this.

What I will say though, is don’t imagine ANYTHING here is black or white (and I’m not talking about the candidates’ skin colors). If you think there’s doubt to be cast on Obama’s campaign practices, then you should know there are is just as much to be cast on McCain? Why? Am i saying this because I’m bitter? No. I’m as calm as i can be when i tell you: it’s the name of the game, politics. You do what you can do to get ahead. You say what you can say.You promise what you need to promise. And if you think McCain is any better, because he seems nice, because he seems approachable, because he could be your next door neighbor, because you can relate to him, because he doesn’t flash a Harvard education around… then think again. He might very well be all of these things, but he’s not become a presidential nominee by being a nice guy, trust me.

And you know what? In 2000 and 2004, we elected and re-elected a guy that seemed nice and approachable. Look where that got us. *sigh* I feel a new post topic coming on whether a POTUS should be just like us… Stay tuned.

In a recent post, I promised that I would try to be fair, and not be the typical opinionated blogger. If i can post about McCain, then i can post about Obama, yes? I’ve spent enough posts expressing my dislike for the former, so here’s me acknowledging the faults of the latter. So you have serious issues with Barack Obama? OK, let’s address them.

Issue 1: Bill Ayers.

1. CLAIM: Supposedly, Obama and Ayers are friends. Ayers is the guy who bombed a bunch of public buildings, so is guilty of national terrorism. Therefore, since 1+1=3, Obama is also a terrorist.
2. FACTS:
   • Obama met Ayers at a general meeting on school reforms for their neighborhood.
   • Then, some years later, Ayers hosted a “coffee” meeting in the neighborhood for Obama’s democratic race kickoff.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Does this mean that Obama and Ayers know each other casually? YES… and we all know that a politician controls every person he meets casually
   • Was it dishonest for Barack to spin it as “he’s just someone in the neighborhood”? YES
   • Is it a good excuse to say that Obama was only 10 when Ayers bombed The Pentagon? NO, I too believe that once a terrorist, always a terrorist, and I definitely think that someone who blew up anything is a national terrorist.
   • Does this mean that Obama and Ayers stay up nights discussing Ayers’ proudest moment when he blew up the Pentagon? NO
   • Does this automatically make Obama a terrorist? NO, this is simply a political tactic called “guilt by association”

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

Guilt by association is simply a political tactic, believe me my Republican friends, I’m really not trying to con you when i say this. Does McCain believe that Obama is a terrorist? NO, of course not. He simply wants the general public to hear the soudbite (Barack, Ayers, terrorist), because he KNOWS that it’s all it takes for the general public to then blow it out of proportion and run leaps and bounds with it. Especially when you put it in the mind of you’re average Middle American who then combines it with another soundbite he’s heard (Barack, Hussein, Muslim), and now he becomes a Muslim terrorist.
See how easy this is? Oh, and just in case you’re a tad smarter than the average Joe-6-pack and you don’t believe that this makes Obama a terrorist, then for you smart person, all McCain wants to do is put doubt in your mind as to Obama’s honesty and transparency throughout his campaign.
I’ll say it again, guilt by association is a VERY dicy game to play. You want to take all those skeletons and bring them out of their closets? Really?? REALLY?? Seriously, please think long and hard about this before answering. If you want to bring the skeletons out of Barack’s closet, and there will be some, maybe even lots, then let’s take a look at McCain’s closet too, yes? And then it’s just a questions of who’s list is longer, that’s all, no one comes out pretty in this one.

Next Issue: ACORN.

There was a time when the world’s favorite cliché of Americans was those funny Jay Leno-style interviews where he’d walk around the streets interviewing average americans, and 1/2 of them wouldn’t know the answers to basic questions such as “Where is Canada”, “Give me the name of a country beginning with ‘u’”… Then, well, the myth was broken when others starting posting YouTube videos showing that there were stupid people everywhere, not just in the US.

But now, the new cliché is a scarier side of the supposed ignorance in Middle America. It’s that somewhere, in the middle of the country, those who stay away from mainstream TV, those white, middle aged men and women listen and believe every rumor and negative rhetoric that comes their way. I’m talking about the negative rumors on Barak Obama. Those who won’t vote for him because he’s black. Those who believe that because his middle name is Hussein, it automatically means that he’s Muslim, and therefore that he’s in bed with terrorists (cuz we know that every Muslim is by default, a terrorist).

The problem is this: they hear soundbites of negative rhetoric, and then, in their heads, they magnify it. They can’t see, for example, that Barak’s association with Fannie May is no more disproportionate than McCain’s. The are not people who base themselves on facts. Really, they don’t. I’m not saying that if they did, McCain would suddenly appear evil. No, no, i’m sure they would still support McCain, and they should, if that’s what they believe in. But read, research, find out the truth. Don’t believe a website, just because it claims to know more about Barak Obama than even the government.

I’ll stop. A picture is worth a thousand words. A video is worth, well, a lot more. So judge for yourself. This is how we see you, America.

Oh, yeah, McCain’s halted campaign really was a heroic move!

• Wed: big announcement, campaign on hold “until we agree on a bailout plan”, oh, and let’s cancel the debate…
• Thurs: McCain is in DC, not in the bailout plan committee, nor bringing any useful info to the meeting with Bush
• Fri: still no bailout plan, but McCain’s campaign back on, and debate back on too…

If this isn’t proof of how erratic this man is, then I don’t know what it. Just like Sarah Palin as choice of VP, he had met her ONCE before.

On a separate note: did you know that a Senator who’s been in a lengthy stay in hospital due to a brain hemorrhage, has still managed to put in more Senate votes than McCain???? Ok, granted, Obama is no3 on the most missed Senate votes after McCain and brain-hemorrhage-guy, but still… Anyway, thanks to Stonecipher for the info!

Yeah, yeah, i know, i said i’d stop ranting about McCain. I will. In fact, I want to address Obama’s faults too, and I will, in my next post. In fact, one of the comments on Stonecipher’s post states that everything us pro-Obama folk say is always assuming “…Guilty until proven innocent. If that’s the attitude you want to take towards politicians, fine, so long as you bring the same skepticism to bear on both candidates.”… totally agreed.

McCain’s main slogan is “Country First”. Ok, can you then explain to me why, a man who puts his country first, would offer his country someone like Sarah Palin as an alternative to him, should he pass away?

Seriously, Palin? That’s the best he found?

1. Foreign Relations Experience: she sees Russia from her window, and she got her first passport sometime last year so she could visit Kuwait (ah, yes, most important that we visit our buddies in the Middle East that have those oil we so depend on).
2. Economy Experience: she thinks that the point of the bailout package is to encourage health reforms… oh, and she ACTUALLY approved the road to nowhere (the one that was supposed to lead to the bridge of the same name) for $223 million in federal funding: this road, ladies and gentlemen, is actually 3 miles of road, with no stops in the middle, and that leads you to a dead end!!
3. General Experience: none, in fact, McCain has no faith in her abilities whatsoever, he won’t let her speak to the press (why? because they were so mean to her the first time around, boo-hoo!), he won’t let the press hear what she says in her 7-minutes with each world leader a few days back (in a few minutes, you’ve hardly gotten past “how old are your children” with Karzai or “waow, you’re so gorgeous i could hug you” with Zardari of Pakistan).

Oh, and way to go, McCain, did you really think she was gonna get you the woman vote? She’s the one who doesn’t even think that an abortion is justified EVEN in cases of rape or incest. Even McCain thinks it’s justified in those cases!

Don’t kid yourself, people, this man is erratic and makes decisions on the fly: Sarah Palin was one of those decisions, just like the decision to stop his campaign so he could “heroically” work on the bailout plan. Did i mention he’s not even ON the committee that’s working on it? All he’s doing is using his Washington connections to push Republicans into approving the plan… Hearing the news this morning, it’s not been very successful though.

This is a joke. Wake up people!! This is, I hope my last rant on McCain. From now on, all my energy (thought, writing) will be put into supporting Obama.

ok, so we all know that not an ounce of truth exists in the political and election process. Everything we hear should be taken with a pinch of salt, speeches embellish the truth, advertisements tell downright lies, and everyone spins everything.

But, when we, the common folk, hear the truth from our own ears, then don’t insult us by telling us something different. Here’s what i’m outraged about this week: a few days ago, a reporter asked McCain how many houses he had. McCain DIDN’T hesistate, DIDN’T “um” and “ah”, and just replied “well, i’ll have my staff get back to you”. Does that mean that he doesn’t know how many houses he has? NO! For the love of all that’s holy, don’t make the man more senile than he probably already is! He said that because he was trying to give a safe answer. He KNOWS how many different houses he owns that he spends time living / vacationing in, he’s not that stupid (insert funny joke about current US president here).

No, but seriously. He answered that because he probably also has a few investment properties, and didn’t want to be accused of lying if he didn’t give an accurate figure. Imagine the scandal if he had only counted the x number of houses he actually lived in and omitted the investments, the Dems would have had a field day saying he was trying to hide something.

So stop calling McCain “the person who can’t even remember how many houses he has”. Every major network has called him that this week. HE KNOWS, LET IT GO ALREADY. This is the type of silliness i expect from the late night shows, this is the type of lies that i expect from advertising from the opposing party. This is NOT the type of statements i want from my major news sources. I heard what McCain said, so do interpret it for me.

Do i think McCain should be president? No. Do i think he might, on occasion, be forgetful? Yes. But i also think he gives us plenty of material for criticism, so can we please leave the man alone when he didn’t, for once, do anything wrong?

In a post back in January, when there were still more than 2 candidates in each party for the US elections, i predicted that if either Hillary or Obama became the party nominee, then the Democrats would loose the general election and the next president would be a republican.

I still stand by this statement. See, I always asked the question “is the US more sexist or racist”. We think this question no longer applies, since 1/2 of america is voting for a black man and the other 1/2 for a woman and one would think the answer is that it’s pretty much equal. But that’s not true, it still very much applies: now that we know our opponent is McCain, who is more electable and likely to win against him, a woman or a black man? So again, I ask the question “is the US more sexist or more racist”?

I personally always thought America was more ready to elect a woman than a black man. After all, this is a country where there a still TWO schools that have some sort of racial segregation.

My personal viewpoint is that, by nature, the Democrats are more likely to accept a minority lead them. So they are more likely to accept a black man. But when it comes to the elections, we may also be looking at a whole bunch of republicans and undecided, who DON’T want to vote for McCain. Will they vote for Barack? I don’t think they will. And in that case, I feel that maybe Clinton should be McCain’s opponent, I think that a republican is more likely to vote for a woman than a black man.

This is absolutely 100% my opinion and understanding of this country from what i hear, what i observe, having lived there and having most of my friends and family still living there. Now, i want to hear what you think. Feel free to post a comment or two. Or answer the poll question on the right. Is the US more sexist or more racist?