And Yet, if We Call Her a Bitch...

Further proof that the Republican Party is divisive and intolerant has come in the numerous reports that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said, "So Sambo beat the bitch!" in describing Barack Obama's win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant. The quote was originally reported in the L.A. Progressive blog and attributed to Palin by "Lucille," an unidentified Alaska waitress.

It has become obvious Mrs. Palin is a good speaker, but to be able to alienate both African Americans and women in one short statement is a feat nothing short of amazing. Using some of the most offensive language possible, she has shown her lack of respect for two groups of people and indicated clearly that she has an incredible lack of self-restraint.

Are those characteristics we really want in a potential leader of our country? I, for one, think not. I believe there are a great many African American and female voters who will agree. John McCain has been quoted as having used the term "bitch" in reference to Hillary Clinton, showing just how much respect he has for women.

Whether or not we feel the term may be justified, it is incredibly ignorant and unprofessional for a politician to be throwing it around. It can be argued that they are people with opinions, but they are also running for very important public offices. They know that every word out of their mouths at this point is going to be scrutinized and analyzed, and yet they cannot exercise the restraint to stop saying stupid, offensive things.

If they can't even keep their mouths shut and keep from throwing out offensive racial and gender based slurs, then how can they be expected to practice diplomacy and tact in dealing with leaders of other countries? Some of those leaders of other countries happen to be black and some even happen to be women. Disrespecting our own people is bad enough, but when you have a President or a Vice President who makes disrespectful comments to or about another world leader, you have the potential of having an international crisis on your hands.

I am a big defender of freedom of speech and don't deny that Palin and McCain have the right to say whatever they want to say. However, I have the right to point out that what they're saying is making them appear ignorant and intolerant and I hope that others are picking up on that as well. Keep their comments in mind when you go to vote.

How many homes do you have?

How many homes do you own? If you're lucky, you might answer one. In this country, there are many who aren't so lucky. We have far too many homeless and people who are living in substandard housing. Most of us are one paycheck away from losing our homes and hardly anyone is safe from the threat of foreclosure.

In the midst of all this, Senator John McCain dares to admit that he has no idea how many homes he owns. He said in a recent interview that he would have to have his staff get back to the interviewers with the answer. The true answer has since been reported to be around seven.

The man owns seven homes. No wonder he had to have someone else do the math and answer for him. Does this really sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to struggle to make a house payment, put food on the table and keep the gas tank filled so you can make it back and forth to work? No. It doesn't even sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to be one of us regular, working folks. So, how could he possibly be able to do anything for us as President?

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

The vast majority of people tend to base election voting decisions on emotion, rather than reason. This is an unfortunate reality that both political parties have figured out and tap into in their political advertising and campaign speech messages.

If you are in any doubt of the fact that emotion is a key factor, think of the millions of dollars in advertising that go into political campaigns. Then take a moment to think about the political ads you have seen. Did they talk about the issues or did they make emotional appeals to voters by either showing the "good guy" with his wife, kids and dog and talking about what a wonderful, church-going family man he is? Or, perhaps they showed a particularly unflattering picture of the "evil" opponent and tried to scare you with talk of his "radical views" or "reckless spending history."

You hardly ever see a campaign ad or hear a campaign speech that is purely factual rather than emotionally charged. This is partially because all advertising is geared toward the lowest common denominator and kept to about a 6th grade level. The people behind the advertising seem to think that none of us is capable of making an informed decision based on information alone, so they need to prod us along with emotional appeals.

If you don't think political speeches are a form of advertising, listen closely to one the next time you hear it. It is an extended advertisement meant to influence the way you will vote and nothing more. Here are where the emotional messages become especially charged. You will hear the politician patting himself on the back in subtle ways about what a good person he is and throwing spears at his opponent on usually personal issues that have nothing to do with politics but much to do with painting a picture of him as a "bad" person.

Though there are many of us who are intelligent enough not to rely purely on emotion, the sad fact is that the majority of people will resort to "gut instincts" or emotional responses which have been colored by the advertising messages they have been fed. This is no way to choose a political candidate, especially one as important as a President, but it happens in this country every four years.

If these emotional approaches didn't work so well and influence so many voters, they wouldn't be used so widely. So, in a way, we've done it to ourselves by responding to them. It's time we started demanding the facts and actually finding out what the candidates' stands are on important issues instead of voting based on fear or who has the nicest family picture.

Does Wal-Mart have any business telling its employees how to vote?

I personally think the obvious answer is a resounding no, however they are doing it. Wal-Mart has been trying to "persuade" their employees to vote Republican in the upcoming Presidential election by scaring them with inaccurate information about a Democrat plan to unionize the monstrous company.

The fact that this huge corporation is abusing it's power in such a way as to try and influence a Presidential election is scary and shouldn't be taken lightly. Please take just a few moments to read the information on the following website which explains this in further detail and also shows the "Wall Street Journal"* article about it: http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/s/voters

*This edit corrects New York Times to Wall Street Journal

Raise taxes or cut programs?

Unfortunately, the next President will find himself in the position of being forced to both raise taxes and cut programs in order to pay off the national debt. It has gotten so out of control that there are simply no other alternatives.

We cannot continue to spend money we do not have, as anyone who has ever had to balance a checkbook already knows. Unfortunately, as a country, we seem to have never learned this important lesson and have continued spending money that doesn't even exist, leaving us in an unfathomable amount of debt.

If this problem is to be addressed, the President will have to tackle it head on. This will mean a dual approach of both cutting programs to reduce current expenditures as well as raising taxes to pump up income.

Though we're all strapped for cash already, we have to realize that it is our tax dollars that provide the working capitol for our government. Without that money, many of the government programs we rely on would not exist. In order to avoid stumbling blindly into even more increasing debt, we may have to tighten our belts a little more and bite the bullet of increased taxes. Besides, did you really expect that the raise in the minimum wage wouldn't be taken away somehow?

The other option to help reduce the national debt is to cut some government programs. There are a variety of programs that, in my humble opinion, are useless in the first place. Do we really need to pay for a program to teach people how to stay married? Yes, it exists. Cut that out and let people go talk to their pastor or religious leader or their grandmother for free. We don't need to be a nation in debt providing glorified government funded marriage counseling. For more information on this program see the website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage and decide for yourself whether you think our tax dollars should be going toward these types of programs or if they might be better spent reducing our tremendous, overwhelming debt.

Tough economic times demand sacrifice. Hopefully we will get a President who understands this and we will be strong enough to support him in his efforts to reduce the national debt by whatever means necessary. It is clear that there are wasteful and even idiotic government programs that could very easily stand to be cut. We can also do our parts by coughing up a few more tax dollars. The best we can hope is that the President will find creative ways to cut expenses that don't impede any important or necessary programs and will be moderate and fair with any tax increases so that all people, even the rich, carry their fair share of the burden of keeping our country running smoothly and heading back toward the black.