So it's official today. Hilary Clinton is going to be the next Secretary of State, and I don't think I'm ok with it. First off, The Obama Biden ticket had been my dream team during the primaries, and the first time I saw Richardson's resume on foreign affairs I knew that he was part of my dream team cabinet. I'm glad he's in there, but I really wanted to see him in charge of the state department.
One of my favorite things about Obama was that he advocated diplomacy above all else, Richardson was full to the gills with international negotiation experience. I mean c'mon, the man negotiated the release of a hostage from Palestine right before he started his campaign. Clinton on the other hand does not really have the credentials in foreign policy. The one thing that she does have though, her one possible redeeming factor, is her name. Bill's connections in the international scene are going to be a huuuge asset to Hilary when it comes time to negotiate. Clinton won't need to get her foot in the door, she'll be led into the smoke filled back rooms immediately. The other thing that I like about having Hilary as the Secretary of State is her disagreement with many of Obama's policies. While this could prove frustrating in the first year I think that having discussion and debate on policy is the healthiest thing for a president to do. And I think that Obama's clout right now will outweigh any serious problems that Hilary has with Obama's policy plans. The democrats are still in the honeymoon phase of the Obama adminstration, he's just too popular right now for her to try and subvert him....I hope....
On a completely seperate note while I was writing this blog I was informed, via text message, that we are actually in a recession. Great!
The markets are plummeting, consumer spending and confidence are down, and our financial system is crumbling around us. I'm still kinda shocked that anyone would want to be president right now. But I have faith. I have faith that this is simply a correction. I have faith in the capatalistic system. And I have faith that Obama will make the right decisions when it comes to who to bail out and what regulations need to be put in place.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Is Detroit Special?
The fundamental question that needs to be asked when talking about bailing Detroit out, is the auto-industry special? Are the big three really big enough that they deserve a government handout? Are too many jobs tied to this industry to risk them collapsing?
My understanding of the bailout bill was that it was going to the financial sector because it is banks and investment companies that run the entire economy. Basically they are special enough that the government cannot let them crumble or else the nation would quickly begin to crumble.
I sat listening to the executives of GM, Ford, and Chrysler speak in front of Congress and I couldn't shake the impression that they were trying to strong-arm the government.
"Give us this money or make us cull 3 million jobs."
While this is quite a persuasive argument (especially as Congress is trying to save face with the middle class after bailing out some of the richest people int he country) it doesn't totally make sense. Consumption is down right now, and it may be a while before it starts to rise again here in America, but the free market tends to be self-correcting people will eventually start buying cars again. The Economist raises an interesting point in one of their opinion pieces, Chapter 11 is designed to help companies go through exactly what is happening to the big 3.
Letting the car industry here in America go bankrupt does not mean that we will never see an American car again. It means that a flagging industry will be forced to go through serious restructuring that is desperately needed. $25 billion in loans is a large risk for the government to take on when the industry has been so sluggish to catch up with the latest in fuel efficient cars. With oil prices continuing in what appears to be a free fall my fear is that if the companies are bailed out there will be no incentive to make more efficient cars. Then as Detroit falls even further behind in hybrid technology oil prices will inevitably rise again making foreign cars even more attractive. This then would be the final chapter for Detroit, with no economic crisis to blame and no more bailout options they would end in Chapter 11. Except in this scenario odds are that Americans will be out tens of billions of dollars in tax money that we just handed to the car companies.
Even after reading about this issue for almost a week I'm still up in the air as to whether or not we should bail out Detroit. I'm just putting my faith in lawmakers (never a great plan) that they will make an informed decision. If the bailout does happen though it MUST come with strong strings, nay chains, attached. Forcing the car markers to adhere to strict new emission standards and invest heavily (with public research as well) in improving hybrid technology.
My understanding of the bailout bill was that it was going to the financial sector because it is banks and investment companies that run the entire economy. Basically they are special enough that the government cannot let them crumble or else the nation would quickly begin to crumble.
I sat listening to the executives of GM, Ford, and Chrysler speak in front of Congress and I couldn't shake the impression that they were trying to strong-arm the government.
"Give us this money or make us cull 3 million jobs."
While this is quite a persuasive argument (especially as Congress is trying to save face with the middle class after bailing out some of the richest people int he country) it doesn't totally make sense. Consumption is down right now, and it may be a while before it starts to rise again here in America, but the free market tends to be self-correcting people will eventually start buying cars again. The Economist raises an interesting point in one of their opinion pieces, Chapter 11 is designed to help companies go through exactly what is happening to the big 3.
Letting the car industry here in America go bankrupt does not mean that we will never see an American car again. It means that a flagging industry will be forced to go through serious restructuring that is desperately needed. $25 billion in loans is a large risk for the government to take on when the industry has been so sluggish to catch up with the latest in fuel efficient cars. With oil prices continuing in what appears to be a free fall my fear is that if the companies are bailed out there will be no incentive to make more efficient cars. Then as Detroit falls even further behind in hybrid technology oil prices will inevitably rise again making foreign cars even more attractive. This then would be the final chapter for Detroit, with no economic crisis to blame and no more bailout options they would end in Chapter 11. Except in this scenario odds are that Americans will be out tens of billions of dollars in tax money that we just handed to the car companies.
Even after reading about this issue for almost a week I'm still up in the air as to whether or not we should bail out Detroit. I'm just putting my faith in lawmakers (never a great plan) that they will make an informed decision. If the bailout does happen though it MUST come with strong strings, nay chains, attached. Forcing the car markers to adhere to strict new emission standards and invest heavily (with public research as well) in improving hybrid technology.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Change.gov
For the first time (to my knowledge) the President-Elect has set up a website to let the public know what exactly is happening with his transition into the White House. I truly believe that this is the type of transparency that we can expect from the Obama administration. No more secret courts (or no courts at all), no more files being specially classified above Top Secret by the VP, instead we will be able to utilize the Internet to turn the White House see through.
The website is great. Very slick, in that true Obama fashion. I think my favorite part is the Weekly Youtube Addresses. This is the perfect example of the direction that Obama is moving, he will be able to engage the youth and the apethetic segements of the population much more readily. I mean lets be honest if you spend too much of your time just trolling through Youtube clips odds are you are not politically engaged. This is the message that Obama is sending out to America, he will be the president for everyone.
The website is great. Very slick, in that true Obama fashion. I think my favorite part is the Weekly Youtube Addresses. This is the perfect example of the direction that Obama is moving, he will be able to engage the youth and the apethetic segements of the population much more readily. I mean lets be honest if you spend too much of your time just trolling through Youtube clips odds are you are not politically engaged. This is the message that Obama is sending out to America, he will be the president for everyone.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Fear vs. Hope, Unity vs. Division
These are themes that have echoed throughout this campaign. Since the very beginning of the race, since even before then in Obama's '04 convention speech this has been a race about opposing world views.
Fear vs. Hope has already been played out slightly. Even the famous Obama slogan is shifting away from hope. But from my view (just slightly biased) McCain has run his campaign on the principle of fear. The terrorists will attack us again, Vote McCain; the sky is falling, Vote McCain; your children aren't safe, Vote McCain. Everything is much worse than you imagine it is, Vote McCain. Whereas Obama has relied on the idea that America is a strong and resilient country that has lost its way slightly, and we can get back on track so long as we have faith and hope that we can do the right thing. Obama voiced these sentiments again when he accepted the party nomination back in Colorado. Voters need to chose hope in the election over voting out of fear.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/obamas-closing-speech-seeks-unity-faults-mccain/
The concept of Unity vs. Division has been handled much differently. Obviously both candidates are going to be claiming the idea of Unity as a central campaign tactic. The most glaring example that comes to mind is the disgusting comments made by Palin and echoed by McCain about the parts of the country that are, "real America."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/palin-visits-a-pro-america-kind-of-town/?scp=1&sq=pro-america&st=cse
The underlying concept of this is that there are in fact Two Americas and what it makes me believe is that if McCain and Palin are elected they would only be concerned with representing the America that voted for them. As opposed to Obama with his message of unity no matter who becomes the next president.
The next president is going to inherit an extremely bad economic crisis, and at that point it is going to be more crucial for the President to be able to unite the nation under one grand cause than what the president's preferred tax policy is going to be.
Fear vs. Hope has already been played out slightly. Even the famous Obama slogan is shifting away from hope. But from my view (just slightly biased) McCain has run his campaign on the principle of fear. The terrorists will attack us again, Vote McCain; the sky is falling, Vote McCain; your children aren't safe, Vote McCain. Everything is much worse than you imagine it is, Vote McCain. Whereas Obama has relied on the idea that America is a strong and resilient country that has lost its way slightly, and we can get back on track so long as we have faith and hope that we can do the right thing. Obama voiced these sentiments again when he accepted the party nomination back in Colorado. Voters need to chose hope in the election over voting out of fear.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/obamas-closing-speech-seeks-unity-faults-mccain/
The concept of Unity vs. Division has been handled much differently. Obviously both candidates are going to be claiming the idea of Unity as a central campaign tactic. The most glaring example that comes to mind is the disgusting comments made by Palin and echoed by McCain about the parts of the country that are, "real America."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/palin-visits-a-pro-america-kind-of-town/?scp=1&sq=pro-america&st=cse
The underlying concept of this is that there are in fact Two Americas and what it makes me believe is that if McCain and Palin are elected they would only be concerned with representing the America that voted for them. As opposed to Obama with his message of unity no matter who becomes the next president.
The next president is going to inherit an extremely bad economic crisis, and at that point it is going to be more crucial for the President to be able to unite the nation under one grand cause than what the president's preferred tax policy is going to be.
Monday, October 13, 2008
WHY AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THIS?!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?scp=5&sq=palin&st=cse
John McCain seemed to have picked Sarah Palin to get another "maverick" on the ticket. He wanted to prove to America that he was the person that could bring change to Washington. One of the things that is implied when you say you're going to "fix" Washington is corruption and cronyism.
We've just discovered that Palin used both of these tactics while she was governor of Alaska, and yet no one is really talking about it. She used her position to unlawfully fire people based on a purely personal vendetta. Palin's sister's husband leaves his wife and suddenly Palin is using every ounce of her authority to get the man fired. She even went so far as firing people hirer up that refused to kowtow to her wishes to get the trooper fired.
What kills me is that no one is seriously talking about this. Maybe the media is afraid of seeming to sexist, maybe the financial stories are just truly more important right now. But this is an issue of the utmost importance and it needs to be discussed because this, in my opinion, disqualifies Palin from being the Vice President.
Voters want to know what candidates positions are on every topic under the sun: abortion, the war, the economy, the environment. People always hope that what a politician says while campaigning is what will actually happen. I'd be willing to go so far as to say most of the time politicians hold basically true to what they discuss during campaigns, but what really matters is knowing that the person has good judgement. Voters want to know how candidates stand on issues that are pertinent to them now. But we need to know that they will make the best possible decision when situations we cannot even imagine are presented.
The conclusion that the Alaska Inquiry came to illustrates perfectly the type of decision making we can expect from Sarah Palin. If she as Governor is willing to make corrupt decisions imagine what she would do if she was vested with the power of the Vice Presidency.
This is not some nit picking matter either. This issue needs to be a legitimate concern for every citizen of the U.S. I can only hope that with markets improving dramatically this story hits the news cycles and sticks.
John McCain seemed to have picked Sarah Palin to get another "maverick" on the ticket. He wanted to prove to America that he was the person that could bring change to Washington. One of the things that is implied when you say you're going to "fix" Washington is corruption and cronyism.
We've just discovered that Palin used both of these tactics while she was governor of Alaska, and yet no one is really talking about it. She used her position to unlawfully fire people based on a purely personal vendetta. Palin's sister's husband leaves his wife and suddenly Palin is using every ounce of her authority to get the man fired. She even went so far as firing people hirer up that refused to kowtow to her wishes to get the trooper fired.
What kills me is that no one is seriously talking about this. Maybe the media is afraid of seeming to sexist, maybe the financial stories are just truly more important right now. But this is an issue of the utmost importance and it needs to be discussed because this, in my opinion, disqualifies Palin from being the Vice President.
Voters want to know what candidates positions are on every topic under the sun: abortion, the war, the economy, the environment. People always hope that what a politician says while campaigning is what will actually happen. I'd be willing to go so far as to say most of the time politicians hold basically true to what they discuss during campaigns, but what really matters is knowing that the person has good judgement. Voters want to know how candidates stand on issues that are pertinent to them now. But we need to know that they will make the best possible decision when situations we cannot even imagine are presented.
The conclusion that the Alaska Inquiry came to illustrates perfectly the type of decision making we can expect from Sarah Palin. If she as Governor is willing to make corrupt decisions imagine what she would do if she was vested with the power of the Vice Presidency.
This is not some nit picking matter either. This issue needs to be a legitimate concern for every citizen of the U.S. I can only hope that with markets improving dramatically this story hits the news cycles and sticks.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
My Friends, my friends, my friends.
I swear I literally have that phrase stuck in my head now. Over and over McCain drilled those two words into our heads. Why? Because he's trying to make it seems that he's the average guy and Obama is the elitist. I like Chris Rock's argument for who we should elect, we need the man who only owns one house in office, not 13. McCain is up against the ropes, he knows he can't make direct attacks because with his poll numbers slipping it'd make him look more desperate. So he resorts to bizarre tactics like trying to make us all believe we're his friend. I say bizarre because of how extremely disingenuous it feels to me as an audience member. McCain saying that he's my friend just makes my skin crawl a little bit. You can't spout off terrible ideas for 90 minutes then expect me to want to hang out. I'm honestly curious what the numbers are for good ol' "Who'd you rather have a beer with" poll, because I bet Obama would win it.
This latest debate really, changed nothing. I didn't expect it to but there's always that outside hope that McCain will drop the N word or something insane. I'm frustrated with both candidates in how the talking points haven't changed at all from the last debate. The rhetoric outside the debates has become decidedly more pointed but both men seem afraid to be on the attack when their opponent is in the room.
The biggest issue was obviously the economy, but this is also where we see the sharpest division between the two candidates. Strangely, both want to lower our taxes and still save money, awesome! But Obama's plan actually explicitly states where the extra funds would come from for his domestic policy. McCain's plan seems to be prepared to be reactionary. Freezing all government spending is a bad, reactive idea, and this is his plan!
We all know that debates don't actually effect how people vote. But McCain does seem to be on a steady decline. So what's that mean then? Maybe the American people are sobering up to the fact that McCain's just not as good a candidate. Or maybe that's just me...
This latest debate really, changed nothing. I didn't expect it to but there's always that outside hope that McCain will drop the N word or something insane. I'm frustrated with both candidates in how the talking points haven't changed at all from the last debate. The rhetoric outside the debates has become decidedly more pointed but both men seem afraid to be on the attack when their opponent is in the room.
The biggest issue was obviously the economy, but this is also where we see the sharpest division between the two candidates. Strangely, both want to lower our taxes and still save money, awesome! But Obama's plan actually explicitly states where the extra funds would come from for his domestic policy. McCain's plan seems to be prepared to be reactionary. Freezing all government spending is a bad, reactive idea, and this is his plan!
We all know that debates don't actually effect how people vote. But McCain does seem to be on a steady decline. So what's that mean then? Maybe the American people are sobering up to the fact that McCain's just not as good a candidate. Or maybe that's just me...
Monday, September 22, 2008
Pandering to the various social classes
Talking to the middle class today both McCain and Obama pledged to protect them from the threat of foreclosures and the fat cats on Wall Street. Neither candidate explicitly mentioned that they were trying to assuage the fears of the middle class, both have postured themselves as the candidate who would help them out the most during this financial crisis.
Obama released a new ad as well, described here, in which he attacked McCain's healthcare plan. Obama is obviously reaching out to any voter who does not have healthcare or is afraid that it may become too expensive to afford. Basically Obama is addressing lower to lower-middle class Americans. This is a constituency that he has been struggling with, so releasing an ad specifically addressing their concerns is something that his campaign needs to focus on.
Obama released a new ad as well, described here, in which he attacked McCain's healthcare plan. Obama is obviously reaching out to any voter who does not have healthcare or is afraid that it may become too expensive to afford. Basically Obama is addressing lower to lower-middle class Americans. This is a constituency that he has been struggling with, so releasing an ad specifically addressing their concerns is something that his campaign needs to focus on.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
More from the campaign trail,
Obama, Ike, and McCain;
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1393418.aspx
The world prefers Obama;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm
These two articles show two interesting sides of the election campaign going on. The first, from MSNBC discussed how Obama chose not to appear on SNL because he felt it wouldn't be prudent with so many people suffering from Ike. I've never quite been able to figure out why politicians can't be good humored even in the face of sad news. I mean, so long as their not making fun of the hurricane victims I don't see how it could be viewed as offensive. Politicians will always do all they can to save face I guess.
The article then goes into how after offering condolences and support for those affected by the storm, Obama went into his stump speech railing on McCain for apparently have no serious educational plan. What I love about the republicans is that they can be hurt by anything. McCain's shot back that it was sleazy for Obama to be making, "personal attacks" against the Senator. Maybe I'm just so stuck in my Democratic thinking but I can't even conceive of how an attack on the lack of policy plan could be taken personally. And you know that even if McCain made a blatant personal attack, he'd be able to justify it somehow.
This whole false sense of moral outrage seems to be a running theme for McCain's camp. Obama attempts a discussion on policy, and McCain gets too offended to actually respond with what his policy is. Wouldn't that have been the easiest way to shut Obama up? I could respect McCain if he came out and said something to the effect of, Obama's got his facts wrong because my educational policy is going to be X. But no, we get outrage at a personal attack. Man, the debates are gonna be painful if this keeps up.
The second article discussed how in a poll of 22 countries the world population generally is hoping that Obama wins. On a topic not related to the election at all, I wish American news was more like the BBC. The sample size used for this poll was 22,531, and this wasn't a meta-analysis either. The depth of reporting seems to be so much deeper abroad, sadly it's harder to say the same about American media. But that's a topic for an entirely different blog.
The poll found that overall 49% of those surveyed preferred the idea of Obama becoming the next American president compared to 12% wanting McCain. The most oft cited reason for wanting Obama to win was that he would be able to improve US relations with the rest of the world. This is a point that I think should be emphasized by Obama's campaign. McCain is trying to corner the market of foreign policy experience, but his experience might not be such a good idea. Obama's emphasis on accepting and embracing the nuances and gray areas of foreign relations is a breathe of fresh air. Obama while on a trip to Kenya with his wife took the time to get a public HIV test with Michelle(referenced in this article http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25853). Obama is a man that can actually go out and try to improve relations abroad. It's one thing for a president to say that we need to help remove the stigma associated with HIV testing in Africa. It's fundamentally better and completely different to be willing to go and get a public test done in a country where some people are killed for being tested.
And the world can see this, a majority of the global population is hoping for a president who is going to be willing to negotiate, to talk with foreign leaders whether or not we're on good terms with that country, and someone who will quite literally walk the walk. For some reason McCain seems to be winning voters over by saying that shunning a nation is a good idea, saying that we should be threatening military action. People need to realize that yes, the world is becoming a scarier and more violent place. But more violence, even just implicit threats, is only making this issue worse. Forget shoot first ask questions later, we need questions first and discussion later, then as an absolute last resort would violence even enter the equation.
This goes back to the point that McCain spins his military experience to make it seem like he'll make American safer. This is wrong. What will actually make America safer is a highly diplomatic foreign policy, voting Obama will make America and the world a safer place. But hey, that's just me and world's opinion.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1393418.aspx
The world prefers Obama;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm
These two articles show two interesting sides of the election campaign going on. The first, from MSNBC discussed how Obama chose not to appear on SNL because he felt it wouldn't be prudent with so many people suffering from Ike. I've never quite been able to figure out why politicians can't be good humored even in the face of sad news. I mean, so long as their not making fun of the hurricane victims I don't see how it could be viewed as offensive. Politicians will always do all they can to save face I guess.
The article then goes into how after offering condolences and support for those affected by the storm, Obama went into his stump speech railing on McCain for apparently have no serious educational plan. What I love about the republicans is that they can be hurt by anything. McCain's shot back that it was sleazy for Obama to be making, "personal attacks" against the Senator. Maybe I'm just so stuck in my Democratic thinking but I can't even conceive of how an attack on the lack of policy plan could be taken personally. And you know that even if McCain made a blatant personal attack, he'd be able to justify it somehow.
This whole false sense of moral outrage seems to be a running theme for McCain's camp. Obama attempts a discussion on policy, and McCain gets too offended to actually respond with what his policy is. Wouldn't that have been the easiest way to shut Obama up? I could respect McCain if he came out and said something to the effect of, Obama's got his facts wrong because my educational policy is going to be X. But no, we get outrage at a personal attack. Man, the debates are gonna be painful if this keeps up.
The second article discussed how in a poll of 22 countries the world population generally is hoping that Obama wins. On a topic not related to the election at all, I wish American news was more like the BBC. The sample size used for this poll was 22,531, and this wasn't a meta-analysis either. The depth of reporting seems to be so much deeper abroad, sadly it's harder to say the same about American media. But that's a topic for an entirely different blog.
The poll found that overall 49% of those surveyed preferred the idea of Obama becoming the next American president compared to 12% wanting McCain. The most oft cited reason for wanting Obama to win was that he would be able to improve US relations with the rest of the world. This is a point that I think should be emphasized by Obama's campaign. McCain is trying to corner the market of foreign policy experience, but his experience might not be such a good idea. Obama's emphasis on accepting and embracing the nuances and gray areas of foreign relations is a breathe of fresh air. Obama while on a trip to Kenya with his wife took the time to get a public HIV test with Michelle(referenced in this article http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25853). Obama is a man that can actually go out and try to improve relations abroad. It's one thing for a president to say that we need to help remove the stigma associated with HIV testing in Africa. It's fundamentally better and completely different to be willing to go and get a public test done in a country where some people are killed for being tested.
And the world can see this, a majority of the global population is hoping for a president who is going to be willing to negotiate, to talk with foreign leaders whether or not we're on good terms with that country, and someone who will quite literally walk the walk. For some reason McCain seems to be winning voters over by saying that shunning a nation is a good idea, saying that we should be threatening military action. People need to realize that yes, the world is becoming a scarier and more violent place. But more violence, even just implicit threats, is only making this issue worse. Forget shoot first ask questions later, we need questions first and discussion later, then as an absolute last resort would violence even enter the equation.
This goes back to the point that McCain spins his military experience to make it seem like he'll make American safer. This is wrong. What will actually make America safer is a highly diplomatic foreign policy, voting Obama will make America and the world a safer place. But hey, that's just me and world's opinion.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Maybe Palin's kid could have used some of this.
Reading the NY Times this evening I was honestly looking for the "pig in lipstick" article but I stumbled across another one that I just couldn't help blogging about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
The headline is, "Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy"
The short and long of the article is that McCain is lying about Obama's history with education. In a new ad McCain claims that Obama supports "comprehensive" sex ed for kindergartners. Obama never actually sponsored this bill, only voted for it in committee, and even then it was never actually passed into law. The legislation called for an overall comprehensive plan for sex-ed, not comprehensive sex-ed for kindergartners.
Playing with rhetoric. The oldest trick in the book.
The only sex-ed that the plan proposed was for five and six year olds to learn about bad touching. How could you possibly attack the idea of teaching kids "Stranger Danger" What type of terrible parent are you to not want your kid to learn about that? Obviously the ad isn't trying to dissuade anyone from educating our youth about the potential risks they may encounter (I'm totally fighting a Larry Craig joke).
What the ad is doing is playing on the fears of many that sex-ed somehow leads to massive orgies between an entire class of 7th graders. Hey - at least they'd be using protection. So many people (the conservatives especially, but I honestly don't wish to discriminate based on partisan lines here) have such a twisted view of sexuality that they fear even whispering to people who aren't 18. In full disclosure I grew up in
So what does all this say about the candidates? Well Obama, years ago once voted for a pretty good idea in committee. And McCain is willing to twist the intentions of a moderate bill to gain a couple of points in battle ground states. Not to mention that the unstated minor premise of the ad is, "Vote McCain, he never want anyone to talk about sex."
Test test test...
one two three test.
This would be my first blog ever. Figured I should try and make sure it worked.
This would be my first blog ever. Figured I should try and make sure it worked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)