With this entry, I’d like to kick off my comments about this year’s Presidential election by providing you with some official comments on what each campaign thinks about “my issue” – that is, what they think about student loans.

From the Obama website (the Obama website bashes Romney quite a bit; that low-level partisanship crap is not carried over here):

By doubling funding for Pell Grants and establishing a college tax credit, President Obama is putting higher education within reach for millions more Americans.

President Obama successfully fought to prevent federal student loan interest rates from doubling for more than 7 million students, and capped federal student loan repayments at 10% of income. This means responsible students and their families can make decisions about the future based on career goals rather than the price of tuition.

From the Romney website:

Higher Ed: A New Vision Of Affordable And Applicable Learning

America’s traditional community and four-year colleges are the heart of our nation’s higher education system. However, a flood of federal dollars is driving up tuition and burdening too many young Americans with substantial debt and too few opportunities. Meanwhile, other models of advanced skills training are becoming ever more important to success in the American economy, and new educational institutions will be required to fill those roles. Mitt’s reforms spur the access, affordability, innovation, and transparency needed to address all of these challenges:

• Strengthen And Simplify The Financial Aid System.
• Welcome Private Sector Participation Instead Of Pushing It Away.
• Replace Burdensome Regulation With Innovation And Competition.

There are additional comments on each website regarding the candidates’ educational plans and the Obama website also gives additional details, separately, about his plan. However, Obama’s website goes well out of its way to bash and mischaracterize his opponent. It’s really disheartening that the President of the United States would rely on old school, bash-based politics for his re-election campaign – especially after tens of millions voted for a politician in 2008 who promised hope for the future and change from that type of politics.

Oh well, I guess that hope and change guy from 2008 wasn’t being entirely truthful about what type of change we had in store!

All of that aside, the takeaway that I get from reading the two blurbs above is that neither of these candidates are speaking directly to my concerns about student loans. Sure, they are talking about making college more affordable, but that’s really a false issue. Think about it – why do you think the cost of higher education keeps skyrocketing? It has nothing to do with the salaries of professors or staff (despite what you might hear). The truth is that colleges are in a cutthroat race against each other to provide higher levels of service and better, more modern facilities. And neither of these candidates has a solution that addresses that problem because, frankly, it’s not a concern that should be handled at the federal level!

You may be wondering, “Then what would be a good answer for you on this topic, Joe?” Well, I’ll tell you! I don’t want to hear about the cost of higher education decreasing because of higher federal subsidies. No. Instead, I want to hear that good, honest, decent students who academically perform in a remarkably successful manner while attending a public high school will be offered a path to a reasonably affordable bachelor’s degree in the public higher education system. What does that mean? It means that if you score at the highest levels of your high school class, then there ought to be a program for you to receive a dramatic tuition reduction (if not just free tuition) to attend the local county college for two years. Once you complete those two years, if you maintain that high level of academic achievement, then the same financial benefit (either dramatically reduced tuition rates or free tuition) should carry over to a four year public institution.

In this scenario, you can receive a college education at almost no cost, so long as you bust your butt in the classroom to earn it. As a guy who has been a student on-and-off for 30 years and as a guy who has taught in several different types of classrooms, I can tell you that there just aren’t that many students who would qualify for this type of program. So why not offer this program – and do it at the state level without getting the federal government involved – starting immediately? New Jersey used to have this type of program, but it was gutted and I don’t think it’s in existence any more.

When it comes to student loans – there isn’t much substance on either side of the election thus far.

Though I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t mind citing who I voted for in the prior presidential elections. In 2000 I didn’t vote (and I couldn’t tell you why – I honestly don’t remember), in 2004 I voted for George W. Bush, and in 2008 I voted for Obama. The reason I voted for Bush in 2004 is because he was the right man for the job at that time and his competition (Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts) just wasn’t the man to be President. Similarly, the reason that I voted for Obama was because he was the right man for the job. The difference between my vote for Obama and my vote for Bush was that Bush was ready for the job and Obama was a little green under the collar. However, I thought that with the cast of characters surrounding Obama (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc) that he would be able to cobble together a decent first year, learn about executive leadership while on the job, and then have an outstanding second, third, and fourth years in office.

As an independent observer, I can’t honestly say that the past four years have been good ones for Obama or for the country.

The root of the problem for the last four years is an executive leadership team (headed up by Obama) who refuse to take blame for the bad things going on in the country. They point to prior administrations and say the bad things are their fault, not the fault of the current administration. That argument may have worked during the first days, weeks, and months of the administration, but at some point you bought the farm and its lack of crops is your fault. Obama and his advisors don’t seem to get that simple fact of management – that at some point you can no longer point behind you and say, “This is all their fault.”

So I look at a guy like Obama – a guy who doesn’t understand leadership and doesn’t understand the economy and there’s no way I can see myself voting for him again. His Presidency will go down as one of the most mediocre, if not fiscally atrocious, ones in the modern era.

And then I turn and look at a guy like Mitt Romney and I want to put my fist through the wall.

Really, Republicans? Really? This is the guy you chose to run against Obama? Good grief.

When I look at Romney I see what the man is – a very rich, northeastern businessman who dabbled in politics for a little while and has been running for President since 2007. He made a ton of money as an investor before he became a politician and that doesn’t bother me at all. Good for him. I hope everyone has an opportunity in their lives to make the type of money that Romney made. Granted, not everyone will seize that opportunity or even be presented with that type of opportunity in the first place, but I don’t begrudge anybody on this planet their success or their natural environment. In other words, if you’re born into a rich family like Romney, then I don’t hold that against you. If you choose to flaunt that wealth like it’s your own (think Paris Hilton and the crew of morons that she hangs around with), then I think you deserve the near-unanimous scorn that you get from the public.

Romney might have been born into money, but he made a ton more money on his own and I don’t hate him for that success.

What I find absolutely shocking, though, is that the Republican power brokers decided to make this man the presidential nominee when his core life experience doesn’t speak – at all – to the group of Americans who are most upset with the Obama administration. If you look at the folks out there who are disenfranchised by and upset with Obama’s performance, then you’d see that they are mostly middle class people who live in the heartland of American. Sure, some of the liberal-leaning people from the far West and East Coasts are also fed up with Obama’s inability to lead and fundamental dislike of the capitalist economy, but you can’t talk to the fringes of the disenfranchised and expect that to ignite the type of fire that can throw a sitting President out of office. And that’s what the Republicans did by selecting Romney – they chose a guy whose life experience is cut from a different cloth than the type of people who want Obama out of office. They chose a rich guy who has absolutely no idea what it’s like to struggle financially, what it’s like to not be able to find a job, what it’s like to have seemingly insurmountable bills piling up week after week, month after month.

Did the Republicans have to pick a “common man” to be their nominee in order to beat Obama? Not necessarily. They should have, however, picked a guy who at least speaks to the common man’s experience in America. That’s not Mitt Romney. At all.

The bottom line is – do you think Romney would be a better leader than Obama and I think the answer is a simple, unenthusiastic “yes.” The man was a wild success as a businessman/investor and a good executive-level politician. That’s it. He’s got the charisma of a wet noodle and is about as endearing as a bruise that won’t go away.

Where that leaves me this November is in an uncertain place. In good conscience, I can’t vote for Obama again. Aside from lying during the campaign (remember the line that no one making less than $250,000 would see their taxes go up? Yeah – then we got the myriad hidden taxes to pay for his healthcare law… liar), he’s just not grounded in the realities of this economy. However, my gut tells me that Romney isn’t the right man for the job. He has no connection to the disgruntled voter base and simply doesn’t understand what it’s like to be a regular, working class or struggling person in today’s America.

It’s a shame that there isn’t a strong third party in America because this is the election where they’d see major success. You have the Libertarian party running former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, but they aren’t given any coverage by the media. There’s always the chance that a guy like Ron Paul could launch an independent candidacy and challenge both Obama and Romney, but that would just about secure the reelection of Obama and I don’t think Paul wants to do that at all. Or, you could just not vote this time around, but I prefer to actually vote because you get a chance to vote for the “undercard” including state and local elections (where, I think, a person’s votes actually matter).

Not sure who I’ll vote for this November, but a third party looks more exciting than either of the big two candidates. All I know for sure is that I absolutely cannot vote for Obama again.

Not good.

However, he did mention something the other night on his show that is, by far, the best thing I’ve ever heard him say. Here, take a look for yourself:

Again, I don’t really care for Stewart but he is on point here. What gives with the lack of Ron Paul coverage?! Look, I know that Paul’s campaign goes out of its way to spike the post-debate text message polls and stuff the audience members with their supporters, but that’s the way it is – why deny its existence? In fact, you might argue that Paul is getting the same treatment that the Tea Party received early on in their creation. Remember that? Remember when there were hundreds of thousands of people marching on Washington, DC and the media was like, “Oh? What? No, we don’t know anything about this Tea Party stuff. Are they racists?”

Why is Ron Paul getting that type of treatment? It’s bizarre. In fact, it’s the type of bizarre that makes people wonder about the media – how can every single news outlet deny the man’s existence when he’s clearly a front runner right now? Gah!

As I looked at some reviews of this documentary on the web, I was shocked by the amount of detractors who suggested that Ziegler was your typical, aggravated conservative who was frustrated with his party’s candidate and is now lashing out. Well, that’s a ton of a bullshit if there ever was some! Ziegler is a committed libertarian and has only ever donated money to democratic politicians. Sounds like a regular Rush Limbaugh, right?

Thought not.

From my view, the documentary really dives into two major issues in the 2008 campaign. First, it looks at how the media deliberately paid no serious attention to the various three alarm fires associated with Senator Obama. For example, the audiotape that came out a few days before the election where Obama specifically cited that previous supposedly-liberal Supreme Courts had not gone far enough into redistributing wealth and addressing issues of economic justice. Second, the documentary looks at how the media absolutely destroyed Alaska Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. When you watch the various attacks played in succession, it’s enough to turn your stomach.

People like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric twisted and bent Palin’s previous statements and then asked her to respond. And when Palin questioned their phrasing of the questions, they lashed out at her like she was a dummy! The thing that always got me about Palin is that she’s just a regular Mom who rose up the political ranks. When she suggested that she was your typical “hockey Mom,” I can see that being true! And it shows you the vast disconnect between the media and regular Americans that they didn’t “get it.”

Understanding Palin boils down to one of the major issues that Bill O’Reilly has been going on about for years now – class warfare; the “elites” versus regular citizens. I put “elite” in quotations because most of the people who fall into this category may not even realize it. For example, I have friends (conservative, liberal, and independent) who have no idea that think in terms of class warfare and their “class” being better than those “below” them. It’s frustrating and a topic for another entry at another time.

There were some portions of Ziegler’s that will stick with me. Maybe the most glaring is how completely biased Katie Couric was in her interview with Palin. And, specifically, how Katie took Senator John McCain’s two major regulatory battles in the realm of the housing meltdown (his relentless pursuit of tighter oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) off of the table when she asked Palin to explain what McCain had done to help stave off the mortgage meltdown. That’s the equivalent of asking someone, “Other than red, white, and blue, what other colors are there on the flag of the United States of America?”

What?

And the documentary also does a good job of talking about how certain issues were blown up to mean much more than they actually did (i.e. race). If you look at the exit polls, race meant nothing to the voters. By and large, the voters went for Obama because they found what the media suggested that he stood for as a good thing (the nebulous concept of “change”). I have no issues with the voters voting anyway they choose, but to constantly use race as a battering ram against anyone who would even think to mention it (such as former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro) is absurd. Sure, if a pundit tried to use it as a negative, then they should have been criticized, but over and again that was not the case.

Watching Media Malpractice gives you a plethora of such aggravating and disgusting examples of the media’s bias. But, as has been reported on this blog by both my entries and my readers via their comments – the American mass media is a complete joke. It is an empire that has forgotten what unbiased reporting is supposed to be about and is, instead, dominated by profits and ratings. Just like now is the perfect time for a third party to rise at the national level, now is the perfect time for us as a nation to turn our backs on the biased media and support independent sources of news and citizen-led media.

In any event, if you have an interest in this stuff, then I suggest that you check out Media Malpractice. You’ll be as disgusted with the mainstream media as I am.

As a presidential candidate, Obama criticized the detention center that human rights groups and many in the international community widely condemned for harsh treatment of prisoners during the Bush administration. The military has defended its actions, saying prisoners have been treated humanely since the center was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The report found the camp to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3, the international rules that require the humane treatment of prisoners taken in unconventional armed conflicts, like the war on terrorism. The camp’s controversial force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes was also found to be compliant with the Geneva guidelines, a second government official confirmed.

I can appreciate that Obama will probably read this report and change his position during the election on whether or not Guantanamo is/was a humane place to keep prisoners. In fact, I would assume that the President is privy to higher levels of information now that he’s the Commander in Chief and that, in this role, he knows things about Guantanamo that we will never know about. I get it – he’s the President, he should know those things.

But what gets me is that you’ll never hear about this story being covered en masse by the mainstream media. You’ll never hear the political extremists come back and say, “Oh golly. Looks like we goofed on that whole ‘inhumane’ thing down at Guantanamo Bay. Our bad!” Not going to happen. However, if this report for President Obama proved the opposite – that Guantanamo was a disaster and that it was an inhumane place to keep prisoners – then you’d have people calling for President Bush’s head right now!

Isn’t that annoying? Isn’t it annoying that we have extremists in the mainstream who will call for the prosecution of a President based solely on their own ideas and thoughts? However, when those ideas and thoughts are proven wrong by the administration of their favorite son, the extremists won’t turn around and say, “Wow. We were mistaken. Our apologies.”

What a sad commentary on the loud voices…

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and his running mate Darrell Castle wound up with close to 179,000 votes, showing even with no ads and comparatively little media attention, the message of liberty resonated with many.

The tally was a 24% increase over the party’s vote total in 2004. However, this year we were not on the ballot in California or Pennsylvania, and in 2004 those states accounted for 33,000 votes. The Baldwin/Castle ticket even grabbed 3,418 write-in votes in Texas, the highest for any write-in candidate in that state.

While the Constitution Party lists their final tally to be “close to 179,000” votes, Wikipedia lists their total for 2008 as 181,342. Not too bad, really. Both the Libertarians and Ralph Nader finished ahead of the Constitutionalists, but they got a few thousand more votes than the Green Party. More from their message:

In addition to larger percentages of votes, 20 states will remain ballot qualified meaning fewer time-consuming and costly ballot-access campaigns will be necessary going forward. This is a 33% increase over 2004.

Many people do not realize that one of the biggest hurdles that young political parties have to overcome is actually getting on the ballot! You don’t just “wind up” on the ballot – you have to actually collect signatures and petition to be on the ballot in each state. It’s not the easiest process and as the quoted message above alludes to, it’s not an entirely quick process either.

It would appear that the Constitution Party made a decent showing for a third party with no financing and no advertising in the 2008 election. America needs a strong third party at the national level – could it be this one?

Ha ha ha! I got a kick out of that – especially while reading Wicked with election coverage on in the background!

Senator John McCain gave one of the noblest, most honorable concession speeches that I’ve ever heard and congratulations go to him for running a tough campaign. The awesome nature of Obama’s win will overshadow the rest of the 2008 results, but it is worth mentioning that while Obama/Biden dominated in the Electoral College, McCain/Palin received approximately 48% of the vote. That’s no small potatoes. In previous years, liberal extremists would have been picketing all over the country calling for recounts. I guess we’ll see if conservative extremists push the same buttons, though I doubt it.

I’m glad that the Presidential contest is now over and I’m glad that the candidates both addressed the nation tonight was in nonpartisan tones. President-Elect Obama has a huge job ahead of him (as all Presidents-Elect do) and I agree with Senator McCain when he says that all Americans should be ready to help.

Halloween was yesterday, but this is a frightening proposition.

Now settle down my little extremist minded readers. I am not suggesting that this is scary because the majority of our government will be Democrats. Rather it is scary because one party will have complete control of the American government (the Supreme Court ideologies do not count). That’s not right. Of course, the Republicans have had this coming to them for a while now. The Republicans took over the American government and did not bring the change that the people wanted. It’s funny, though, how in the wake of President Bush’s second term the nation forgets about the Democratic scandals of the last two decades. It’s even funnier that this country is dominated by a vicious, disgustingly biased media. But I digress…

What will the Republicans do if they fail as miserably this coming Tuesday? Frankly, it’s time for the GOP to go back to the drawing board. They had their opportunity to make a difference in American government and they failed. I see two paths for the Republicans in the wake of a pending disaster on Election Day.

First, they can choose to take up a truly moderate position on all of the major issues. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a think tank called American Solutions. This group has taken a variety of polls showing how 80% – 90% of Americans agree on certain issues. For example, polls show that 87% of Americans support English as the official language of the United States. Another example – 81% support greater use of domestic energy sources to fuel America’s future. Great.

The Republicans can choose to be the champions of these bipartisan issues and use this stance to win back some of the good graces of the American public.

The second direction the party can go from here is highly unlikely, but still a possibility. In short, the party can break up into various factions. Let’s face it, John McCain is not the same Republican as is George W. Bush; just as Elizabeth Dole is not the same type of Republican as Arnold Schwarzenegger; just as Christine Todd Whitman is certainly a different type of Republican than John Ashcroft. The fact is that there are too many different “types” of Republicans and this is a bad thing. Why is it a bad thing? Look at the current election cycle. There will be Republicans who lose Senate or House seats because there is an “R” after their name on the ballot. Sure, they may disagree with all of the policies of the current administration, but they’re about to get punished anyway.

Why not have a Conservative Republican party? Why not a Constitutional Republican party or a Traditional Republican party? Trust me, I understand why the power structures at the top of the Republican party would never allow this to happen (ca-ching!), but it might be time for the candidates (present and future) to take this party into their own hands. If you’re running as a Republican in San Francisco, guess what? You lose. But what if you ran as a candidate in a Liberal Republican party? What if you could disassociate with the stigmas and stereotypes of a nationwide organization?

With all of this being said, I have to say that I believe if Obama wins the election it will be very hard for him to win re-election. My reasoning is exactly the same as above. If the Democrats win the big majorities in the Congress, then it doesn’t matter who sits in the White House because the Senate Majority leader will rule the legislative agenda of the country. I believe that this country will experience a major shift to the left in the coming years and it might be too big of a swing for many to take. Obama needs to watch out for that if he’s sitting in the White House…but first he has to win the election.

The election is in the hands on the media now, so we’ll likely see a build-up in Obama’s numbers heading into November. The media has anointed Senator Obama as the next President and that’s fine so long as America understands that we have a biased media and unless there are drastic changes (like the increasingly influence of an independent media through online channels), then we’re doomed. A news channel that would simply report factual news or even both sides of the same issues would be a huge success in this country. Oh wait, we already have FOX News and the brainwashed extremists think that it’s biased in favor of Republicans.

Isn’t weird how some Americans will ask for something, get it, and then condemn it?