Let us focus on November 4, 2008.

This has the chance to be the most significant U.S. election since Abraham Lincoln.


A brief list of the most significant U.S. elections, and why…

  • George Washington – Could easily have run America as a dictator. There was no restriction on how many terms a president could serve. By choosing to step down after two terms he relinquished power voluntarily… unheard of anywhere on the planet. Every subsequent president followed the two-term precedent until FDR. His four terms were the motivation needed to inspire an amendment officially limiting presidents to two terms.  Democracy flourishes!!
  • Abraham Lincoln – The right man at the right time in history. Successfully fought the secession of the Confederate States, maintaining our democracy and setting a world-wide example that no human should be reduced to slave status.
  • John Kennedy – Don’t laugh. He only served 1000 days, but his election was historic for our nation. Never before (and never since) have we elected a Catholic. It seems absurd now, but it was a monstrous achievement at the time. 

Nearly fifty years later, are we REALLY past the ‘religion’ litmus test?  So much was made of the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon during his run in the Republican primaries.  Heaven forbid a real Muslim should run for president someday. (Clarification for some still-confused McCain supporters:  Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim.)  

The election of Barack Obama would be an achievement equal to or surpassing the Kennedy election.  Forty years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, a man of color has a legitimate chance of becoming our president.  Maybe we have made some progress.  Should Senator Obama win, and nothing is EVER certain, our country will be forever changed, and for the better. 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Read more

Recently Senator John McCain and Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin have been referring to their voters – and their voters alone – as “real” Americans. I’d like to say it’s hard to think that they would say something like this, but truthfully I’m not shocked to have heard them say this. Apparently Senator McCain is not getting any new voters, so he has to do everything he can to keep the voters he already has from slipping away.

Is it helping his case, though, to be doing this? Will keeping the votes he has be enough, even if he takes the swing states? For this, I rely on the website 270towin.com for results. The automatic simulator is based on the probabilities of each state going to each candidate. I’ve run this simulator well over 500 times in the past few weeks. When I first found the website about a month ago, Senator Obama won fairly frequently, though I saw at least ten or so wins by Senator McCain in the times I saw.

In the past few weeks, the simulations have fallen more and more in Senator Obama’s favor. This, coincidentally, has occurred at the same time Senator McCain’s ads started becoming more vicious. “Senator Obama would talk with Ahmadinejad without preconditions!” was heard many times, yet polls still rose in Senator Obama’s favor. Shortly thereafter, “Senator Obama has been palling around with terrorist Bill Ayers!” Still, defying all logic, McCain fell in the polls.

Maybe John McCain and Sarah Palin are right. After all, the people that aren’t voting for Senator McCain are voting for Senator Obama and his terrorist buddies. Maybe the real Americans are the ones supporting Senator McCain in this election, not to be blinded by Senator Obama’s sinister precondition-less campaign.

Or maybe the real Americans are the ones who are sick of listening to obvious and tiresome lies.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)

Read more

Barack Obama and John McCain have been saying that they both are willing to reach across the aisles and pass bipartisan bills for the good of the nation. If that’s the case, then why are they only publicly admiring past presidents within their own party? Obama has been speaking well of John Kennedy and FDR, and McCain has been saying he’s proud to be in the same party as Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. If they say that bipartisanship is important for the country’s well-being, then why isn’t Obama proud of Ike, and why can’t McCain admire Truman?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Read more

The McCain campaign keeps touting Sarah Palin’s “executive experience” trying to pawn it off as more beneficial than “experience.”  While executive experience is probably a little beneficial, the type of executive office really makes a difference.  I think the only “experience” that Palin can really claim is her 21 months as Governor. The Mayor thing doesn’t really take a lot of experience.  First of all it only takes popularity to get elected in a small town, rather that thought or ideas. Second, mayor of Wasilla doesn’t really control that much.  As pointed out by The Daily Show last night, the mayor doesn’t control the fire department, or the schools, or the libraries.  What are you controlling if not those things?

I would dare to suggest, that while Barrack does not have much experience. Four years in the United States Senate, is probably better than less than 2 years as governor, and 6 years as mayor of a small town.

Now lets take a look at their education Sarah Palin transferred from colleghe to college four times (basically attending 5 times including the first college), and went to four different colleges, finally getting her bachelor’s degree at the University of Idaho with a degree in Communications/Journalism.

Barrack Obama Went to Occidental College for two years before transferring to Columbia University.  Where he majored in Political Science with a specialization in International Relations.  After which he entered Harvard Law School, and took over  as an editor for the Harvard Law Review The next year being elected President of the journal (Now that’s executive experience for you). He then graduated with a magna cum laude from Harvard.

I don’t know judge for yourself, who has more credentials.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Read more

If conservatives think the media is generally liberal, maybe it is true.
Maybe this is partly because conservatives have made lies & smears part of their standard operating procedure. Eventually, even a moronic, weak-kneed press will catch on and start investigating what you say rather than just reporting it.

Case in Point:   The GW lie machine was well-oiled long before he got in office, and they were prepared with a goodie for Day 1. Bush operatives told Fox News that Clinton staffers had removed the “W” from all the White House computers as they were leaving.  Fox News is so deep in the pants* of the Republican party that I am guessing they KNEW this was a lie.
It didn’t matter, Fox beat it like a drum, and other networks & news sources, not wanting to seem too ‘liberal’ (or perhaps not wanting to be last to break a good story), treated it like a legitimate news story. 

Instant credibility because everyone is reporting it!!

Eventually the GAO researched this and found no evidence that the “computer damage” story was true.  The horse was WAY out of the barn by then.  People still believe this lie, and still pass it on.
Just like 8% of the populous believes Barack Obama is Muslim, while another 33% don’t know WHAT religion he is…
Spread the lies, they will stay out there forever.

The regular press is now finally, with mixed success, trying to investigate these types of rumors before parroting them.
Not printing the lies (or debunking them) allows the far right to says the press is ‘slanted’ and is ‘not reporting’ bad things you should know about liberals.
It took blogs to re-interest the press in investigative reporting. Blogs started reporting some important issues that turned out to be true, well before the old-style press even started to investigate them.
Lets be honest though, blogs (WinkestLink excluded of course) are frequently full of sh**.  Can we all agree on that?  I thought so.

How brave is your local press?  Test them with this brief experiment: Send a letter to your paper saying some politician is a liar.  (Make sure the politician has lied, and include details.)  If your letter is printed, and includes the word ‘liar’, we will eat our collective hats.
Newspapers edit you letters. Anyway, the WinkestLink staff get all of our letters edited, no matter how delicately we word them.  This makes sense when we spell a word wrong or make a factual error. (I could have sworn Wayne Gretzky & Karl Marx were born on the same day.)  It makes less sense when they neuter a letter, just so no ones feelings get hurt. Thus, the word ‘liar’ almost never makes print.
Except in blogs.  Bloggers are willing to call a liar a liar.  We sometimes call honest people liars.  We love the word ‘liar’.

Bloggers often reveal more about candidates than the normal press has the nerve to.
The press usually knows that ‘Candidate A’ sacrificed his dignity to get elected (or reelected), and ‘Candidate B’ is a jerk.
They won’t let you know, because they have a misguided definition about the word ‘fair’.
They feel telling you these things doesn’t show ‘balance’ and would sully their reputation.

Some blog info is true because the blogger has a high powered source, an “In”.  This is somebody with connections who wants ‘secret’ info leaked to the public for various reasons.  Bloggers LOVE inside sources, but are not afraid to make stuff up if no source is available.
Frankly, WinkestLink could use a few more “In’s”.
If you are a high-powered White House insider, feel free to pass the occasional ‘inside scoop’ to us at WinkestLink. We promise to be your lapdog until you start jerking us around, then we will say things about you that will make your mother cover her eyes. (This IS a visual medium after all.)
We make the same offer to willing Senators and Congressmen. We promise NEVER to reveal our sources. NEVER!!!  (Dick Cheney can vouch for us on this.  We never did let on that he was the one who told us GW was a puppet of Big Oil, and Dick was calling all the shots at the White House.  Please keep this under your hat…)

* “Deep in the Pants” is a registered trademark of WinkestLink Inc, and any unauthorized use of the phrase is a sign of extreme jealously.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Read more

Senator McCain, you keep asking this question: “Who is Barack Obama?”

You have served with him in the Senate.

You have called him your friend.

He has written two books telling you who he is.

The books don’t include comments supporting terrorism, but…..

Is he a terrorist?  If so, Senator McCain, you should have turned him in a long time ago…

We can’t have terrorists serving in the U.S. Senate.

You HAVE persuaded some of your ardent followers that he is dangerous.

You are convincing people he is chumming up to ‘American Terrorists’.

Do you really want to have the craziest among your fans believing that?  Do you understand this is the emotional ‘green light’ a maniac might need to ‘save’ our country from the evil Obama?

How can you not understand this?

When you demonize your opponent, you make him seem less than human. Do you not understand the ramifications?

After weeks of you (and especially Palin) stirring up your crowds with an imaginary Obama-terrorism tie, you recently began to try to calm them a bit.

We thank you for that, but your new ads say Obama is being dishonest about his relationship with a 60’s-era terrorist.  Of course by ‘dishonest’ you mean Obama is lying.

Since you KNOW he is lying, tell us what he is lying about.

Did he have lunch with the (college professor) terrorist?  Five lunches?

If so, what do you suppose they were talking about?

They did work with the same charity & social service organizations in Chicago….

They COULDN’T have been talking about that, could they?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Read more

By now, nearly everyone with the internet, television, radio, newspaper, or even some basic human contact has heard the news that presidential nominee Senator John McCain actually defended fellow presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama at his own rally in Lakeville, Minnesota. If you follow that link, you’ll see this in the article:

“’I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States,’ McCain said to boos and groans from supporters.”

Boos and groans from his own supporters. It is times like these where we see the true people supporting Senator McCain’s run for the presidency. It is not because they think McCain will be an excellent president and is the most able man for the job. It is no longer because they think McCain will stand for what is true and decent in America (not that these people were ever looking for the truth).

These people are behind Senator McCain because he is against Barack the Liberal. The people that booed Senator McCain when he said Senator Obama is a decent person are only behind him because he is a Republican. They are voting for Senator McCain because he is not Democrat. They are voting for Senator McCain because he is the vessel of abuse they are looking for. They are supporting Senator McCain because they expect him to say that Senator Obama is the Antichrist, and to agree with them or even acknowledge they might not be so bad is forbidden.

These people do not use what scientists call logic. They think logic is something only for liberals1,2, instead voting for the president that uses any of the following phrases in the same sentence3:

Liberal(s), Obama, Muslim(s), Evil, Hypocrisy/hypocrite(s), Fascist/fascism, Communist/communism, Elite, Bias, Hate Speech, Deceit, Delusional

I would love to say you have to pass an IQ test to vote (or at minimum a sobriety test), but that will not likely come to be for a long time. Until then we must allow the votes that have taken an old saying to its extreme.

“I don’t vote for people, I vote against them.”

1 A question to ponder:  Are black holes capable of thought? If not, what are these people using to think?

2 If you don’t believe me, check out the Conservapedia page for “Liberal” (which I refuse to link here on moral grounds). It’s right between “Liberals” (Three cheers for redundancy!) and “Myths”

3 Fun challenge: Try to use as many of these words in a sentence as you can. It doesn’t have to be a grammatically correct sentence, as that would put around 32% of potential participants at a disadvantage

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Read more

John McCain has been saying that the Republican Party is the party of regulating Wall Street.  He claims that the Democrats have not been strong when it comes to keeping the stock market in check.  Lets give you a brief history of “Republican Regulation.”  In the 1920’s, GOP Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover were so pro-regulation, that they removed virtually all “fair-game” laws so businesses could do whatever they want. Here’s another fact: in 1924, the conservative Supreme Court ruled that minimum wage legislation was unconstitutional. Who were these people trying to help? Were they thinking of Joe Six-Pack?

Next time McCain tells you that he belongs with the party of regulation, take it with a grain of salt…or just call BS on it immediately.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Read more

A new video of Phillip J. Berg purporting to have the “October Surprise” In which he claims that Barack Obama is not an American citizen. He attempts to back this up with many facts and “facts.” It should be pointed out that Berg is/was a Democrat, but was upset about Hillary not winning and can’t give it up that for this election his candidate wasn’t the one people wanted.

Read more

We can NOW call this a Recession, at a very minimum….


The causes of this recession are many and varied but, had the 2000 election turned out differently, the U.S. may have had a shot at avoiding or reducing the damage of this downturn.


Remember, we had many years of budget SURPLUSES during the Clinton administration.  Surpluses tend to keep the economy strong.  Surpluses can be used to solve all sorts of unforeseen problems.  We were actually paying down the national debt.   


It is safe to guess that Al Gore would have continued the same Clinton fiscal policies that led to the surpluses.  Gore has the intellect to appreciate a surplus.


Not George Bush.  GW hated all things ‘Clinton’.  He wanted to convince you that we had a surplus because Clinton had overtaxed you.  Conservatives never tire of demonizing Clinton, so the surplus had to be described as ‘evil’ over-taxation.


Our newly-elected hero, George W. Bush, was brave enough to step up and offer the excess money (the surplus) be returned to the Americans who put it there.


Well, that is what he said to our TV screens.


If that was his real intention, it would simply have been a case of political pandering (and Clinton-bashing), but he had a different idea in mind…  Sell the idea as a tax cut to all Americans, but give the huge majority of it to the very most wealthy.  He didn’t even bother calling it ‘trickle down’… he just lied to us.  


Massive cuts.  Monstrous cuts for (coincidentally) those who had always financed Bush campaigns and given him high-paying jobs.  (Don’t you wish your grandpa was a senator & your dad was a congressman, vice-president & president?)


He was so awful in those jobs they eventually ran him for governor of Texas just to get rid of him.  He has been in the pocket of the very wealthy his whole adult life.


Okay, okay.  What does that have to do with our financial state?  Part of the reason the U.S. has no money is GW (and the Republican congress)….

1)      Gave away the surplus through massive tax breaks to the very-very wealthy

2)      Went on a monster pork spending spree (a very un-conservative thing to do)

3)      Started a war with a non-enemy, Iraq, which costs the U.S. $10 billion per month and has no foreseeable end.

This wiped out our surplus and put us into a devastating hole.


Since we have no ‘surplus’ money to try to right this financial ship, we (you and I) are forced to borrow the money to pay the $700 billion bailout, with $150 billion in excess goodies (pure pork) tossed in just to bribe lawmakers to vote for it….   $700 billion, $850 billion, what’s the difference?


We don’t even know if the $850 billion will solve the problem.


Because we flushed our surpluses, the U.S. now must borrow crazy sums from countries like China, who don’t always have our best interests in mind.


That would be bad enough, but our economy is becoming so distressed that friendly & unfriendly countries may soon not want to take the risk of loaning money to the U.S..


When we can’t even borrow money things will REALLY get bad around here.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Read more