Note: The following article was written by a woman who calls herself an equal oppertunity basher. She wrote this article the day after the opening of the Democratic Convention so had nothing to say about the Republican Convention.


I've been following the presidential campaigns as well as our state campaigns for the U.S. Congress and I am sad to say that the faces change but the rhetoric stays the same. I was once married to a U.S. Congressman so I have a bit of experience in this "campaign stuff."

Last week McCain said he didn't know how many houses he owned and this week Obama didn't know what town he was in. Both have made major gaffs that give the other side ammunition for derogatory comments and negative campaign ads. Each is bashing the other, each is reaching for anything that helps them win. They're tired, they're overbooked and they're human. While they say a lot of words, neither candidate offers any hard specifics about what they'll do once in office. Each offers a lot of generalities. Actually, they can't do much more than that because, thank God, they are not a one man show once they get elected. They have a Legislative and Judicial branch they have to work with and getting that many "important" people to work together is like herding cats. The also have to cut through all the lobbyists and that is an even bigger challenge.

Last night I watched the opening of the Democrat Convention and felt like I was at a pep rally. Little of substance was said. Michele Obama gave the keynote address and I found myself feeling a bit distressed. She wore a beautiful designer dress, was coiffed and impeccable in her appearance and tried to convince the conventioneers that she was "middle class" just like them. (Actually, she has her own dress designer, Maria Pinto, whom she has used "for a long time." I don't know many middle class women who have their own dress designer, do you?) She gave a speech that was full of words but short on both feeling and substance. I wasn't convinced. She kept trying to persuade the "congregation" that she and her candidate-husband are middle class - just like them. She painfully recited all the problems encountered by herself and Barack in their early years growing up in middle class neighborhoods. She failed to mention that she graduated from both Princeton and Harvard. I felt she "protesteth too much." I came away from it wanting to know who the "real" Michele Obama is.

The children were beautiful.

The commentators afterward lined up on both sides, of course. Some seemed to think the speech was on target, wonderful, portraying a true picture of a middle class family that is headed for the White House. Others saw them portrayed as Bevear-Cleaver-family-wanna-be types in an effort to get votes. There was little middle ground with the news media.

On a state level it's much worse. We have a number of candidates in the race for a congressional seat in my district in Arizona. All talk about "clean campaigns" and the mud is flying faster than I've ever seen political mud fly. I get 3 or 4 pre-recorded phone messages a day from these candidates, each bashing the others and asking for my vote - and my money. It will be a matter of picking the "lesser of the evils" on election day. That is very sad.

Where are the statesmen? Who has a passion for this country strong enough to put all the personal aggrandizement aside? Don't tell me what you think I want to hear. Don't read the polls in the morning paper and stand for the " issues of the day." What are your stands on the issues? What do you want to accomplish? That's what I want to know - consistently and unembellished.

Senators McCain and Obama, don't think I'll vote for you just because you're a war hero or a black man, a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative or because you're the "media darling." I'm not voting for your wife or your children or for you because you have a nice personality. I'm not turned off because you make a mistake or misspeak when you're rushed or tired. I will vote for you based on your record and your stand on the issues. I will place my vote where I see integrity and openness. Please, please let us know what your positions really are and what you truly want to accomplish as President of the United States of America.

Readers, don't get mad at me because you think I bashed your favorite candidate. I'm an equal opportunity basher. I love America. I want the best leader we can elect as President because we are in trouble as a nation. We need a statesman. Will the real statesman please stand up?

Let's see some honesty, here. Let's see some leadership. Let's see some truth.

Can we shift gears and make it Politics NOT as usual?

By: Irene Conlan
Irene Conlan has a masters degree in nursing, a doctoral degree in metaphysics, is a certified hypnotherapist and an ordained minister. She practices holistic hypnotherapy and officiates at weddings in Scottsdale, Az and the Phoenix metropolitan area. Irene can be found at http://www.theselfimprovementblog.com

The political password of Obama is the need for "change, America is heading in the wrong direction", the question is, which direction should America take to solve its economic and military problems? Perhaps a look at rather recent history since World War II can provide evidence as to the right way to go?

At the end of World War II, socialism, under the guidance of Communist Soviet Union, was spreading rapidly throughout the world. America countered by supporting and making alliances with governments that wanted to remain free of communism. Both America and the USSR developed nuclear missiles as an impediment to military action by the other side. The "cold war" took on a more heated and scary reality.

The Soviets beat America into space with "Sputnik", and later with the first man in space. President Kennedy responded with the first man on the Moon project. The only trouble was he needed an enormous amount of money to do this. So he reduced taxes, which spurred America 's free enterprise economy, more people working and paying taxes helped finance this huge space program.

Later, when President Reagan, labeled the "cowboy" from Hollywood was elected president, the cold war was still a major problem for America. What to do? He lowered taxes. The free enterprise economy once again provided large gobs of money.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK was also faced with a dire economic situation when she took office. Things turned around when she sold off the government run socialist businesses to private enterprise, their free enterprise economy took off and the UK prospered.

Gorbachev, the Soviet leader was amazed on how well the free enterprise system was out-performing his socialist system. When Ronald Reagan boldly announced that he was fed up with the Soviet "evil empire", and threatened to launch the "Star Wars" program, this shocked Gorbachev, for he'd come to realize that the Soviet socialized economy could not compete with the free enterprise economy.

So miracle of miracles, at the insistence of Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev tore down the Berlin Wall, and started the process of democratizing Russia, which brought an end to the cold war.

However, what didn't happen was stopping the insidious penetration of the superiority of a socialist controlled economy over free enterprise in the minds of America 's left wing leaders in government, the media, the schools, and even the courts.

More recently, President George W. Bush inherited an economy headed into a recession. He got the message on reducing taxes, but was confronted by the left-wingers in congress, so he compromised by agreeing to a time limit on reduced taxes. The economy picked up and remained strong until the sub-prime lending fiasco, which was the fault of irresponsible lenders and borrowers, not of President Bush!

At this time, America is faced with choosing a new president, Obama vs. McCain. Both are calling for a change.

So which type of change is best for America?

On the one hand, Obama believes it's best to let the tax reduction act of President Bush expire. He believes that industry will continue to produce plenty of taxable income.

But what have we learned from recent history? It will do just the opposite.

With much higher taxes, it'll be harder for free enterprise businesses, small and large, to develop new and better ways of producing marketable products and services. Unemployment will increase, reducing the availability of taxable income to government.

Raising taxes will also hinder the development of internal sources of energy. America 's dependence on foreign oil has led to excessively high gasoline prices. America must move aggressively to eliminate this problem and that will require strong financial support.

With Obama's tax increase, everybody loses, especially the unemployed worker and the poor (less money available from private and government charitable programs).

McCain on the other hand promises to fight for an extension of the tax reduction act and stop pork barrel spending, which recent history proves works wonders for the economy. And a strong economy is what's really needed to help the poor and the underprivileged.

Wake up America; Vote for those who favor a free market economy as opposed to those who prefer more restrictions and higher taxes. McCain may be far from perfect, but at least he's experienced enough to learn these important lessons from history. Even the Chinese communist government has figured out that a free enterprise system works far better than a socialized economy. Even under their less then desirable communistic rule, their economy is booming and providing their government with massive amounts of money. Somehow Obama has not yet learned these important lessons from history, namely the value of low taxes and a free enterprise system.

By: Russ Cellocrat

Well, it must be political season again and even though President Bush is not running for re-election, he seems to be the brunt of the anger from the Democrat Side of the political spectrum. Now, the democrat bloggers are calling Presidential Candidate John McCain; "McSame" as in the same as the Bush Administration or 4-more years of the same in this case if elected. Let me give you some back ground on this issue and my opinion on the subject.

Not long ago, one of the Obama Bloggers, there are some 500 of them now, stated that all the economic challenges we face in the United States are President Bush's fault. Are they really? No, but it made for a nice blog post to light a fire under the average democrat voter. Perhaps the blogger needs to read Robert Shapiro's book; Futurecast.

The relevance is that Robert Shapiro, states several times in the book that it really does not matter who is President, because the demographic shifts and our economic basis with 70 million baby boomers are retiring at the same time dictates a lot of what is going on economically. Since, Robert Shapiro is a Clinton man and yet, his honest assessment, lets the Bush Administration off the hook for trade deficit issues, economic business cycles and warns of future problems with only 1.9 people working for every retiree, as well as blames both sides of the isle for the nation's debt and spending; it appears that such arguments for bush bashers are not viable. Thus, we must take them with a grain of salt.

Further, it should be noted that changing course by raising taxes and slowing down our economy is not the answer, which is exactly what will happen if Obama is elected in my humble opinion. Therefore, yes, we need to stop the spend thrift ways, but let's not blame the Bush Administration and buy into the negative media hype tearing down his personal character and legacy, while distorting the reality merely to seek "change" for change sake.

Swinging the pendulum of our politic all the way to the left and beyond, with Obama's "socialist-liberal" mindset is an extremely bad move for this nation, especially right now, at this critical point. I predict a deep recession if Obama is elected, the likes of which we have not seen in many decades. Is that what the Democrats are proposing? Because, I am certainly not buying and Paris Hilton, well heck, she's looking pretty good right about now as a good alternative to Obama.

By: Lance Winslow
"Lance Winslow" - Online Blog Content Service. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net.

Barack Obama has a problem - his solution to the gasoline crisis is no solution at all. In fact, it is so transparently ridiculous that even a dull child could see through it.

"We can't drill our way out of this problem!" he exclaims repeatedly.

Well...of course we can. What would you say to your dentist if you went to him with a cavity and he told you, "We can't drill our way out of this problem"? You'd think he was an idiot, and you'd be right.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. It takes no intelligence to understand that if something is in short supply, then you need more of it. If people are starving for lack of food, they need MORE food. That's pretty basic. At present there isn't enough crude oil on the market to supply all the demand at a reasonable price; the solution - produce more oil!

Simple. Basic.

It is a well known fact that the United States has plenty of oil that isn't being tapped. Drilling for it would relieve the shortfall and we wouldn't have to pay foreign markets for the privilege. But Obama's reply to that is: "That won't solve the problem -- it will take ten years for that oil to enter the market." Setting aside for a moment the fact that many experts are predicting a 2-5 year turnaround on proposed drilling, let's follow the "logic" of that statement:

You: "I want to go to college."

Obama: "Are you crazy? You won't graduate for FOUR YEARS! And look at how much money you'll spend in the meantime."

You: "We're thinking of having a baby."

Obama: "That's nuts! The kid won't be an adult for 18 years! And you'll have to support him until he does."

You: "I'm planting a garden."

Obama: "What for? You won't get any food out of it for three or four months!"

If Obama's position makes any sense, then there is no point in ever starting any project or enterprise. If it really is going to take ten years to get the oil out of the ground, then when would be a good time to start? Never? Apparently so, in Obama's mind. He's fond of telling us that the oil companies have leased 68 million acres of land on which they can drill, and chides them for not using it. Well, how do I know they're not using it? Maybe there's no oil under it. Prospecting takes time, and Obama wants us to wait while the geologists comb those 68 million acres for oil. In the meantime, in ANWR and the continental shelf, the oil companies know exactly where billions of barrels of oil are waiting to be harvested - but Obama says KEEP OUT.

So what is really going on here? Could it be that Obama's ideology is so far to the left that he truly thinks Big Business is evil? Is he so beholden to lunatic-fringe environmentalists that he will protect their interests at the expense of the country as a whole? We've already seen his reluctance to break allegiance with terrorist Bill Ayers and radical Rev. Wright; maybe he has other anti-American friends as well. He says he loves America - and I'm sure he does - but he has stated repeatedly that he wants to change it. Change into what, exactly? Socialist America?

Obama's solution to the oil crisis, according to his website (www.barackobama.com ), is not to drill for oil, but to force the oil companies to give their profits back to consumers in the form of rebates, to help them cover the cost of gasoline. In earlier times this philosophy was known as "robbing Peter to pay Paul". If that's such a good idea, then why not just force the oil companies to sell the stuff at $2.00 a gallon and be done with it? Why jump through all the hoops?

The answer, to me, is simple enough: Obama wants you and me to look to HIM for our salvation. He wants us to know what a great guy he is and how much he cares for us. He thinks it will make us feel good to see him stick it to those evil oil companies.

But who, exactly, owns the oil companies? George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? Most oil companies are public corporations, which means they are owned in large part by stockholders. People like you and me. Not just rich oil tycoons, but also ordinary people who invested a little money in the hopes of bettering their lives. Obama's plan will rob those investors of much of their return. And I'm supposed to feel good about that?

Sorry, Barack, I don't.

By: John Bowers
John Bowers is a novelist, published author, and computer programmer who spent 40 years as a cult slave. His escape from the cult in 1992, at age 44, caused him to rethink every belief and opinion he had ever held, resulting in a logical view of the world.