The McCain-Palin Campaign -- Politics as Usual

I am thoroughly amazed by the amount of drivel that is being brought up by the McCain-Palin campaign during the final throes of this election. Typically, I would not be surprised by this type of activity—after all, the dirtiness of America's politics have never truly been secret to the rest of the world, at least since the 1844 release of a newspaper article by a Whig party boss claiming that he had come across some flames with a “James Polk” brand on them, inferring that Polk had cruelly sold slaves in order to fund his campaign. When all was said and done, this was shown to be untrue (George Mason University's HNN).

However, particularly in this election season, there has been a lot of talk about eliminating “politics as usual” from the McCain-Palin campaign. Yet, the opposite has been the case:

Over the weekend, McCain aides served notice to the media that they would begin an intensive assault on the character and judgment of Democratic candidate Barack Obama—a strategy that is expected to continue through tomorrow night's presidential debate and right through to Election Day.” (Washington Post)

 In a time of such need in this country, are we to allow somebody to gain leadership on these grounds? In my experience as a human being, I have come across many people who use the same tactics in everyday situations—they put down others, try to point out personal flaws, in order to make themselves look better. These people are typically called “bullies”, in elementary school. Once we've made the jump to high school/college and beyond, though, they have been renamed either “bitches” or “assholes”.

I, personally, would never vote for someone who uses these archaic and basic tactics in order to distract us from the real problems we are encountering.

Moreover, he has dragged Sarah Palin in on the smear-fest. I like Sarah Palin as a person. If she was one of my friends mothers, she would definitely be the “cool mom”-- provided her rides to hockey practice were a reality. But let's get a couple of things straight—am I expected to believe that the arguments and muck she is pulling up regarding Barack Obama is of her own knowledge? Just a few weeks ago, she claimed not to “know what a Vice President actually does”, and as of a few years ago had never even had a passport to travel to other countries (so I suppose she couldn't even visit the country she could “see from her house”).

That's not to say that because she didn't have a passport necessarily makes her unfit to lead a country. It is a telling sign, however, as to how she'll be able to navigate the complex world of international politics. If she had never bothered before, than why should we make it up to her to simply become familiar with the world over the next four years? That is something that should have taken care of long before a position on a Presidential ticket becomes a reality. More over, not only do I not buy her reasoning for not having a passport, I find it offensive as well:

"I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents get them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world. Noo, I've worked all my life. In fact, I've usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture."--Sarah Palin to Katie Couric

So, not only does this show how little Palin actually knows about the traveling process (parents giving their kids a passport? That doesn't even make sense), but apparently I'm part of a completely different “culture”, one of a pampered lifestyle that requires no work and Mommy and Daddy's open pocketbook. Any student that has taken advantage of study abroad programs, and are currently paying off those loans they took out for it, should take much offense to this assertion. As for me not buying her reasoning, is that since becoming the governor of Alaska, her income has been $125,000 per year, along with her husband's $65,000 in self-employment (fishing and snow mobile racing). Prior to, she earned a little under $70, 000 a year as mayor of Wasilla. She also was a college student (quite a few colleges, in fact) having attended Hawaii Pacific, North Idaho Community College, University of Idaho, Matanuska-Susitna community college, and then back to the U. of Idaho, completing her B.S. In Communications-Journalism in 1987 (Anchorage Daily News).

So, what culture was she not a part of, exactly? Apparently she didn't have much trouble paying for school, given the relative distance and the relocation costs of all of these different colleges (last I checked, there aren't many community colleges that have dorms). I'm not going to fault her too much for not taking opportunities to travel (though I think that a leader of our nation should have that experience, whether it takes money or not), but her reasoning is absolute hogwash.

The latest of her assertions is probably the most dishonest and ridiculous statement I have ever heard:

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

This wasn't just a slip-up either, she reiterated this statement three separate times. This is regarding Bill Ayres, one of the Weather Underground founders whose members did several bombings in the 60s in protest of the Vietnam war. Ayres and Obama were both community activists in Chicago, and as it turns out, served on several boards together. The most “controversial” activity is that one of Obama's first fund raising parties took place at the home of Ayres.

But let's get one thing straight: how old was Obama when these bombings occurred? 7? And how close were Ayres and Obama once they were both community organizers in Chicago? Investigative reports have come back with “not very”. Moreover, what is Ayres up to these days? He is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Well by golly, The University of Illinois is “palling around” with terrorists as well! Should we eliminate all Illinois alumni from public service, in fear that they are radicals waiting to destroy the United States? No, because Ayres has become a respectable member of society since the time he was a radical who committed acts and held beliefs (and as some reports show, still holds) that Obama himself has denounced.

Are we really supposed to be deceived by this? Apparently, it's beginning to work, though. As McCain was giving a speech the other day, he rhetorically asked out-loud “Who is the real Barack Obama?”, at which point someone from the crowed yelled “Terrorist!”.

I know that isn't true. You know that isn't true. John McCain knows that isn't true. Did McCain address the comment, considering it is causing even more polarization of the country? Of course not.

Politics as usual.