Christmas time

Despite my unwillingness, I am now fully surrounded by holiday cheer. I do not think of myself as a "Scrooge" per se, but my aversion to all things Christmas might seem a bit out of sync with the American tradition.

Hanging up Christmas décor seems not only like a waste of time, but a waste of space in a one-bedroom apartment that has precious little. It just seems so defeating to don my home with stuff that will only stay up for a month. And if I get lazy, and don't take them down until January 10, I will look positively stupid.

Besides, no one ever comes over anyway, except my boyfriend, who has agreed that we will not celebrate Christmas when we get married.

If I say any of these things to people in an attempt to explain why I don't like this time of year, they look at me as though they don't understand at all. "Why, Ryan, how come you don't like to put up a tree? Or hang lights?"

Because I don't think it's worth the hastle, that's why. If I'm going to redecorate or put up new things in my apartment, I want it to be legitimate. Maybe a sale at World Market or smoke damage would be better reasons to reassess how my apartment is decorated than the birth of a guy I'm not entirely convinced deserves all the fuss.

Is it over?

Is the election finally over now? If I open my eyes, will I see Barack Obama and his smiling family in the White House?

It looks more and more the case every day. Fortunately, every angle McCain and his shrill sidekick use these days seems to backfire-- trying to link him to terrorists, trying to associate him with the failures of the economy, trying to pin an image of classic Washington-liberalism (tax hikes, big government, "socialized medicine")-- none of it is working.

Hell, even what they don't do has been a telling subject as of late (failing to reign in a minister who introduced McCain and made an ass of himself in Davenport, Iowa, as well as allowing their supporters to seethe with racist and sinister ignorance).

So, has the McCain/Palin ticket finally gone bust? Me thinkest so. McCain's "town hall" format in the most recent debate, which was hyped endlessly by the media and his campaign, could only be described as "not a failure", rather than a "win", which he desperately needed.

Meanwhile, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Iowa have floated away from McCain, and stepped-up Obama efforts in New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana(!) are forcing him to spend more money (of which he has comparatively little).

For those of us who are rooting for Obama, there is much to celebrate. For those of us who are rooting against McCain, there is much to celebrate. In short, as of right now at least, it is over.

Media is impotent on judging conservatives

Anyone who watched Sarah Palin gaffe and stumble her way through Katie Couric's Q&A had to be horrified.

It was a cringe-inducing performance that went largely unnoticed in the mainstream media. Wolf Blitzer, when pressed by his angered and beloved colleague Jack Cafferty to "not make excuses" for Palin, said dryly "it wasn't her best interview."

Wasn't her best interview? Are you joking? I am an avowed Palin-hater and even I was uncomfortable, and I even *gasp* kind of felt sorry for her. She was sweating it out and could be seen looking down at least twice, trying to avoid the look of the whimsical, pitying face of Katie Couric who had to be wishing it was over even more than Palin.

But the mainstream media (except Cafferty and a brilliant SNL spoof) largely paid no attention to it. Even Chuck Todd, who many Republicans accuse of being "in the tank" for Obama, wouldn't come out and say the truth: That Sarah Palin looked, at best, terribly off the mark, and at worst, disqualified herself from the vice-presidency in a five-minute interview. Even George W. Bush has punched through more articulate and navigated responses!

In short, the media will not say that McCain played politics by wanting to bow out of the campaign and not debate, and the media will also continue to blindly refuse to acknowledge Palin's astonishing lack of understanding on any substantive issues. Period.

It's the economy, stupid!

I would have been surprised to hear McCain's comments about a strong economy, but he has made similar remarks at least a dozen times since January.

That's why yesterday, when in Florida, he said "the economy is fundamentally strong", my only worry was that the American public would be suckers for a promise from the same party that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actually, it's not the Republicans who got us here from what they did, it's what they DIDN'T do.

While I do not understand the economy's nuances and twists, I think I get the basics: De-regulation leads to corporate greed, no oversight means no one plays by the rules, and shipping American jobs overseas is not a good way to boost the "fundamentals" of the economy (which is what McCain "clarified" yesterday-- that the American worker is the base of our economy).

Actually, consumer spending-- not work ethic-- accounts for a great deal of our economic growth, 2/3 of our growth from what I've read.

So, if people aren't spending, our economy dies. How can people spend if their banks, their stocks, their homes, their loans, their jobs, and their credit cards are sinking and failing? The short answer: they can't, and that's why it's all about the economy, stupid!

McCain/Palin or Palin/McCain?

Since the announcement (or annointing) of Palin as the veep for the Republicans, I have been awed by the hype that surrounds her.

Without mincing words, let's face an obvious fact: Palin's popularity comes from her being a pretty, conservative mother-figure, and far less about what (little) she has done in an obscure state's political world. The reason she is a big deal is because she has five cute children and she is a "newbie" on the political scene.

What does this say about McCain as the "maverick"? Unfortunately for McCain, nothing much. Apparently his credentials as a scrappy, independent-minded Senator have done little for his popularity. In fact, the only time he has been consistently ahead of Obama in the polls (albeit by 1-3 points in most cases) is post-Palin.

The fact that he has only escaped the ranks of the 40-percentile since he announced his running mate says pathetically little about his abilities to convince the general public that he is the right man for the job. He has, for better or worse, been a household name for over 25 years and a media darling for about 10.

To tout Palin as the Savior of the Republican Party is almost certainly premature (undoubtedly she will not escape unscathed from this stormy election season). But to say anything other than her being the Savior of the McCain bid for presidency would be dismissing her integral role as... a hockey mom.

Did Sarah Palin win it?

Before I watch the talking heads spin her speech into an unrecognizable mess, I am stricken by two things: her bold and zesty attacks against Democrats (I heard the audience bellow a surprised "Oooh," as in "Oooh, no she didn't!" at least three times) and her unwaivering support for McCain.

Although both of these things were expected, few expected her to do it so well. Further, the incredible volume of strange oversights in her selection process (she met McCain only twice, the "Troopergate" scandal, belonging to a fringe Alaskan-Separatist group, her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy) was seemingly dwarfed tonight by uproarious applause from the Republican faithful. It is doubtful that even Republican insiders expected so much out of a "hockey mom" with a rather annoying voice.

So, why did she seem to do so well?

The main reason has nothing to do with her.McCain had so many people who were lined up on his "short list", it was hardly short at all. McCain was tracking women, a diverse group of current and former governors, pro-choice Senate veterans, business leaders, and any combination therein. In a word, he needed one thing: change.

In a broader context-- whether McCain/Palin is victorious or not-- the fact that the Republican vice presidential pick is the exact opposite of current and recent Republican leadership shows a broad and unanimous desire from the American people for "change" (a word I've counted used no less than 25 times in my casual viewing of the convention).

And we all know who the first man was to promise change this year... Let's hope the American people remember that.

Should Obama play dirty?

More often than not, I am disappointed in Democrats for one main reason: they refuse to get down and dirty in election battles. Outrage and finger-pointing aplenty comes from within the party about Karl Rove and his divisive politics, or about the Swift Boat Veterans, or the Willie Horton blame game. Democrats always see what is done to them as being unfair or mean-spirited.

Well, of course it's unfair! It's politics! And of course it's mean. We are talking about two very large groups of Americans who are fighting for the reigns of the most powerful country on earth.

I read more than my fair share of blogs and comments on major news websites (probably more than I ought to), and I have noticed many self-proclaimed independents already bashing Obama for going negative.

Objectively speaking, he has yet to go negative. McCain has lied about Obama's tax policies, falsely tied him to rich celebrities, and pegged him as arrogant and elitist. And we aren't talking about misleading little nuances, we are talking about outright lies. And Obama's most aggressive or controversial attack yet was based on an actual McCain quote (he forgot how many houses he owns).

Can Obama afford to go negative? Absolutely. It may be the only thing that saves him. And to pretend to take the high road and not respond to attacks cost Carter in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004, and countless other state and local races for Democrats throughout history.

Suck it up, Obama. In politics-- at least recently-- the victory goes to he who took the low road.

Blind followers of the Republican Party

I always say that if you are a wealthy white Christian heterosexual male, go ahead and be Republican. If not, you really have no reason to be. Abortion is sometimes necessary, guns are not, gays will soon be able to marry and fiscal responsibility went by the wayside the day Bush took office.

Any Republican who is in favor of the government staying out of their affairs need look no further than legislation passed and signed by Bush that allows cell phone companies to spy on you (Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" took up this notion in a very scary way).

But this is all general... It should be obvious to even a casual political observer that the Republicans have been way off course lately.

What has bothered me lately is the attacks on Obama, and the "tit-for-tat" mentality McCain's campaign insists on using. John McCain is the elitist, Obama isn't (McCain's economic advisor was so out of touch he was asked to step down, he owns seven homes, he is married to a multi-millionaire trophy wife, he wears $500 shoes, he had a private jet before Obama did, etc).

The McCain tort? "Obama said that Americans 'cling to God and religion'", and "he wants to know the price of arugula."

If that's the best they have, they should go back to Arizona now.

Anyone who believes in the "moral fabric" of the Republican Party ought to look right through McGolddigger. He abandoned his first FAMILY (not just his first wife) for a bimbo millionaire, and was dangerously close to being implicated in several shady business deals (see Keating 5). Plus, his precious Cindy was a pill-popper for years, stealing from her own charity.

And as far as experience goes: having a lousy, inconsistent record in the Senate and getting shot down in Vietnam is hardly the stuff that most presidential aspirants would brag about.

So, to those of you who only vote Republican because you are looking out for your money: McCain can't remember how many homes he owns. Family issues: McCain's two marriages and convenient dismissal of his first FAMILY ought to speak for itself. Military service: Probably would have never happened if not for his daddy. Independent record: He flip-flops more often than he stays on message.

Republican faithful: Get a brain for Christ's sakes!!!

McCain- Worse than Bush?

While it might be hard to fathom that a president could be worse than Bush, McCain certainly has the track record to edge out ol' Dubya on this dubious honor.

As recently as Saturday night-- where his obviously rehearsed Q&A with a famous megachruch pastor received mass applause-- McCain has been gaffing his way into the books of political infamy. Take this one: "If you were to put a number on being rich, say, $5 million?"

The audience laughed, as did McCain. But it was clear that he wasn't joking. He distinctly and uncomfortably laughed only after the audience had begun to do so.

So, he's out of touch on economics (something most of us already knew a la Phil Gramm).

How about military service? Well, he voted against Jim Webb's bipartisan plan to bolster money for the GI Bill (a fund that educates returning troops and veterans). More recently, he endorsed the veto of a bill that would have limited the CIA's ability to torture (the veto that Bush eventually penned, of course). And, perhaps most telling, he was in the bottom 2% of his graduating class at the Naval Academy.

Well, surely his record as a "maverick" is good enough... Think again. Flip flops on gay marriage, the Confederate flag, the Iraq War and offshore oil drilling, to name a few. Check it out here.

In sum, it's pretty clear that McCain is peddling the same Bush formula-- on the economy, the war(s), social justice issues, and even benefits for soldiers.

John McCain. A real American loser.