Republican Tatics

Is Kansas, and the rest of the Midwest, racist? Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius seems to think so. At a recent Obama campaign in Iowa City, Sebelius accused the GOP of using "code language". Here's the actual report from the Associated Press (AP):

"Sebelius says GOP using racial 'code language'

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius accused Republicans on Tuesday of injecting race into the presidential campaign, arguing that they are using "code language" to convince Midwesterners that Democrat Barack Obama is different from them.

"Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?" Sebelius asked with sarcasm. "(Republicans) are not going to go lightly into the darkness." "

Later the AP changed the wording of the story so that it isn't so accusatory, but the truth can be found out there if you look for it (try here, it's where I found it).

So, as a native son of Kansas, are we racist. Not anymore then anyone else. Sure I've heard my fair share of racial epithets in my 31 years, but as the older brother to an [adopted] Hispanic brother and [adopted] African-American sister, I know that I've heard very few actually directed at them.

And as for the suggestion that Republicans are using a secret code word to bring race into this election without having to bring up race, well that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard since Ross Perot accused the GOP of planting tracking and listening devices in his head and disrupting his daughter's wedding in 1992.

If one thing can be said about this election cycle is how civil it has actually been. In a Oct. 29, 2008 USA TODAY article, Sandy Grady makes the same point saying,

"Sure there is a queasy excess- too much campaign money sloshing around, too many TV ads, too many polls constantly taking temperatures in every state. But by the standards of other years - the Willie Horton ad in 1988, Swift-Boating in 2004 - it wasn't an excessively dirty campaign. For that we could partially thank McCain, whose sense of honor forbade employing racial overtones against Obama"

As the race draws to a close, and the polls show the numbers drawing tighter as well, is the Obama campaign beginning to get worried that a Truman like win over Dewey is possibly going to happen? Are Obama supporters concerned that McCain may end up winning this that they feel the need to offer false statements and accusations. It appears that way to me.

I’m more then willing to vote for an African-American, a woman, an Asian, a Hispanic, anyone, as long as they agree with me on key issues that are important to me. That’s why I support Sarah Palin’s nomination and would support any number of conservative African-Americans.

Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, are able to look past race, only to a small, bigoted number does race matter, such as the two skinheads from Arkansas who recently wanted to attack several African-Americans including Senator Obama. Most American’s don’t agree with these statements or beliefs. Accusing us of doing so only mucks up the issue more.

The Sarah Palin Threat

I'm 31 years old and have been watching politics since middle school, 6th grade actually, age 11. That's 20 years of watching the Republicans and Democrats duke it out for The White House, for the Senate, for the House, for Governorships. And in those 20 years of watching politics, I have never seen a Vice Presidential candidate attacked as much as Sarah Palin has been in this current election. The closest example I can think of is the 1988 VP debate when Lloyd Benson mocked Dan Quayle with the famous "I know Jack Kennedy, and you sir are no Jack Kennedy".

Why? Why does Gov. Palin pose such a threat that the left will resort to any and all means of attack her?

Examples include:

• Attacks on her Christian faith, i.e. this article from Newsweek
• This picture from a West Hollywood, CA house (also posted to the side here)
• attacks on her intelligence
• and many many more

So again, why is Sarah Palin the left's favorite target? Palin has admitted that she has aspirations beyond this election and it is my opinion that the left is afraid of that very thing. Palin is pretty and pretty smart. Former Obama speechwriter Wendy Button, who in this blog has explained why she will be supporting John McCain, says this about Palin,

"When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper."

And Ms. Button you are correct, Palin is smart and is strong. The left wants Americans, especially American women, to believe that all women who vote Republican are 1950's housewife wannabes. Any woman who is smart, strong, and dedicated and who happens to disagree with the left on issues, especially social issues such as abortion, must be attacked and torn down. The only women they want in politics are Hillary clones, like Michelle Obama (a radical college leftist) or KS Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

Don't let the media, such as Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and others fool you, look into it yourself.

Who are we listening to?

Many in America, especially the liberal elite, feel that America needs to become more like western Europe. That is a country that embraces social and fiscal liberalism.

That means a country that embraces a homosexual agenda, a country with easy abortion and euthanasia laws. It means a country that denies it's religious history. It means a country that's weekly church attendance dips to 10% or less.

And it means a country that is ineffective in international affairs. Most European leaders wish America out of any affairs in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic nominee for the Presidency agrees with many of these same foreign policy ideas.

I have a friend that completed his second trip to Afghanistan. He didn't go as part of the military, he went with the best of purposes, the help the less fortunate. He didn't spend his time on the military base but on the streets and the university of Kabul. He was teaching and talking and listening to the Afghans, to Turks, and to Iraqis. And what he came back with was a surprising fact: most of the people he visited with don't want America to leave. That includes again, Afghans, Turks, and Iraqis. Stop, go back and read that again. Contrary to what the media may report or what politicians may say, most want America in country. They feel safer, and know that if America leaves without a proper leadership and government established, dictatorships will rise up and things will go back to the way they were before, weather it be the Taliban or a Saddam clone.

Senator Obama has laid out a plan that would pull America out of Iraq within 16 months. He has said he wants to focus on Afghanistan and al Qaeda, but what about al Qaeda Iraq, which despite his claims to the contrary, were in place before we ever started this current war effort.

Am I disappointed by the way the war in Iraq has gone? Sure I think most of us wanted an easy and quick war, similar to Gulf War 1 and I think most of us thought that was going to happen with the quick take over of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam. We weren't, and our government, wasn't prepared for the presence of insurgents, of al Qaeda Iraq, and many other things. But the fact is, if we leave without a stable government in place, things will never change in the Middle East.

Honestly, we should, and probably will, always have a constant presence in the Middle East, we've had a base in Germany since the late 40s and the end of World War 2, we've had Guantanamo Bay since the 60s. I'm not advocating a US military presence that acts as a policing force, but rather a base that is there and established to protect what we have accomplished there.

A further look at history reveals that we also cannot leave a country in the lurch. In the 1980s a Texas congressman named Charlie Wilson was responsible for funneling millions of dollars to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan in their effort to get rid of the Soviet Union's invading army. After the Afghan rebels were successful, Congressman Wilson wanted to continue to funnel the same, if not more money, into Afghanistan in order to rebuild the country. Our Republican President and our Democratic Congress did not feel the same way and our money stopped. Schools and hospitals, and many things that could have benefited Afghanistan never came to fruition and made it an easy access point for al Qadea and the Taliban to establish themselves.

My fear is that if we pull out of Iraq without significantly rebuilding the government and the people then we'll allow another Saddam in office.

So who are we listening to and who should we be listening to, European intellectuals who have little to no first hand experience in Middle Eastern affairs or the common people who live and breathe in the Middle East every day.

Change We Can Belive In?

Senator Barack Obama has been campaigning on the motto “Change we can believe in”, and in doing so has captured the hearts of many, not only in this country but in this largely Republican state and community. A vote for Senator Obama most certainly is a vote for change but have we taken the time to look and see what kind of change it would bring?

A vote for change would mean a change to our current abortion policies. Sen. Obama supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions (through federal subsidizing) that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. Senator Obama has also promised the “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)”. This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy including fully viable children in the final weeks of pregnancy. Senator Obama was also one of the few Senators who opposed the ban on partial birth abortion and opposes parental notification laws.

A vote for change would mean a change in health care policies. Senator Obama supports government controlled and mandated “universal health care”, which is wildly ineffective world wide and would not allow us to choose our own doctor.

A vote for change would mean a change to our foreign policies. Senator Obama was against the recent surge in Iraq claiming that it would not be effective. Senator Obama was proven wrong as the surge has been working. He also has promised to meet with leaders who are hostile to the United States including Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and radical Muslim nations.

A vote for change would mean a change to our First Amendment rights. Senator Obama supports The Fairness Doctrine, legislation that would REQUIRE ALL radio and television stations and broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints. If you air 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly you must air the same amount to someone who has the opposite views. This is an infringement and government control of our freedom of speech and press.

A vote for change would mean a change to our Second Amendment rights. Senator Obama voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers while serving in the Senate.

A vote for change would mean a change to our immigration laws. Senator Obama supports giving driver’s licenses and extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

In short, a vote for change would mean a vote for one of, if not the most, liberal senators in office right now. Many want to believe that Senator Obama is the next JFK or FDR, but in reality he is one of the most inexperienced people to ever run for the highest office in the land, having not even served a full term in the national senate and having passed no piece of significant legislation. Many people want to vote for history, but no matter what a vote this year is a historic vote, featuring the first time in decades an incumbent president or vice president has not run, the first African-American candidate, the oldest candidate, the first woman on a Republican ticket.

Vote as an informed voter, as a passionate voter, not a hoodwinked voter.