The blogs and pundits (at least the ones that haven't completely lost touch with this thing most of us like to call "reality") noted pretty much the same things -- McCain Started strong. He was more assured. He...
Well, then he began to do what he did in the last two debates -- he didn't know when the hell to shut up.
Time and again the CNN reaction lines would occasionally move above flat-line, and McCain would screw it up by adding one more disjointed thought. He was disrespectful and downright rude at times when Obama had the floor. There were moments when I would SWEAT McCain was going to implode. Considering the results of the snap polls wherein Obama won 2 to 1 over McCain, maybe imploding would be a GOOD thing.
I made a joke before this last debate that the only way McCain would "win" is if he pulled out a gun and shot Obama dead. I didn't realize there was a "worse than losing" possibility -- that McCain could so clearly show himself completely disconnected is unreal.
If you missed it, there's a full transcript available. One key moment that I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't gotten more play. In response to the question about health care reform [emphasis mine]:
That's big government at its best. Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed, which will be taxed, but then you add $5,000 onto it, except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.When I first heard that I had to turn to Roni and go "did he REALLY just say that??" Did John McCain imply that, for example, a kidney transplant for your 8 year old would fall under the "gold-plated Cadillac insurance" plan?!
That's right up there with his dismissive comments about protecting the mother's health in terms of abortion bans:
Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.Roni about imploded on that, and (not surprisingly) the women in the CNN live tracking had the women pushing McCain into his most negative territory yet. You know, the demographic that Palin was supposed to lock?
That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."
Which leads me to my last shift on this campaign. To be honest, I was really hoping Ron Paul would kick up this political season, but he's flashed and burned a bit to quickly -- and has lost focus -- since his initial splash. I was pretty pissed at Obama for his contribution to the FISA abortion that was passed earlier this year, but my stance has become downright petulant in appearance when viewed in the current context.
For one, I was hoping Paul would shed light on the financial crisis to come that... well, came. Almost 11 months to the day since I first considered him a possibly maybe has a shot in hell candidate, the very disaster I was hoping could be forstalled came to pass.
Secondly, when Goldwater republicans and the son of William F, Buckley can look at the situation staight on and say "Vote Obama", who the hell am I to hold the position I did?
So, by the time you read this I will have added an "Obama Pride" icon -- that will do until I can do up a proper "Libertarian Queer Pagan Bisexuals for Obama" icon.
Speaking of "Pride" -- do people actually BELIEVE the crap that the
While on an emergency mission to Ukiah for Peter's birthday (but mostly to get them over the horror of the mauling of Meatball, their pet chicken, by a pair of dobermans -- LONG story), I saw a "yes on 8" lawn sign that didn't mention anything about marriage or "special" rights -- just that it protected parental rights.
It wasn't until I got home and did some digging that light was shed: They're trying to argue that, if the current state of affairs stands, that they will teach that gay marriage is okay in the schools and parents have no right to object.
Let's not argue the point that there should be nothing wrong with teaching tolerance for the moment. Those kinds of discussions would take place in a sex ed setting -- you know, the class that parents can opt their children out of? And still will be able to, even if Prop 8 doesn't pass? The same parents who are supporting this backwards thinking waste of time?
Personally, I think Prop 8 IS a waste a time, for OR against. That's due to the small detail that the "Yes on 8" types would rather not think about -- that the state's constitution can only be modified according to it's own criteria. Yes, there is a mechanism providing for revision by proposition -- the CA Supreme Court is very likely to consider the results of the proposition to be an AMENDMENT, and sections I and II of the same article make it clear that would require a 2/3 vote of the legislator's to open a constitutional convention.
Say they decide that it DOES fall within this process -- the right wing may have wished they had never opened that can o' worms (now with 50% more wigglyness!). After all, it could be argued that the term MARRIAGE itself is a religious issue, and thus adding the term to the state constitution might run afoul of the federal, particularly the first amendment. You could see a drive to remove the "special rights" set aside for people of a particular religious institution, in this case, marriage.
Of course, all of that is moot if you spread the word and spare some change for the "No on 8" campaign in those crucial closing weeks:
Okay, that's about all I can stand right now. I hope y'all think about what I have to say. And remember: A vote for a republican is a vote for bigotry, hate, and religious extremism. And you kill a puppy. Think of the puppies, for the love of goddess!