Ipsism Cerebri*

One might even say that the parties have devolved to the point that the selection will be "you're a racist if you're not a misogynist"

Both parties have tried to vilify the other with subtle pejoratives and threats.
Neither party has shown even a shred of statesmanship to justify their support.
The electorate is (or should be) repulsed by the schoolyard bullying of the partisans.

Having witnessed elections from the second Eisenhower term to the present, the current election is amongst the most vitriolic and genuinely nasty elections of the last half century. Even the 'anti-Catholic' election of John Kennedy pales compared to the current charges of racism or misogyny of the current contest. Political philosophy and convictions are suddenly of no importance, being relegated to the shadows of race and gender.


Remember when it was easy to tell if a candidate or his supporters were racist? David Duke had been a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and couldn't name any of the major employers in his state. George C. Wallace stood in the school house door. Jesse Jackson. Things seemed fairly simple. Now, you're a racist if you don't agree with someone's preferred candidate. Same thing on the other side. if you don't like the selection, you're a misogynist.

There's so much more that the electorate could be debating. It's fairly clear that the Democrats have selected someone who's spent his life as a schmoozer rather than a doer; and is a "so far left liberal that he's a socialist" who's in favor of expanded government, increased taxation, more entitlement spending and an appeasement style of foreign relations and favors abortion.

The Republicans have selected a moderate, sort of conservative, anti-abortion geriatric, who champions reduced government spending, decreased entitlement spending and a rigid if not confrontational style of foreign relations.

The young Democratic candidate chose an old liberal guy to be number two on the ticket - after rejecting a woman as number two. The old Republican candidate chose a young woman right-winger after rejecting old liberal guys, an African-American lieutenant governor and an Indian American governor.

So, do you have to be a racist to be philosophically opposed to Obama? Not so much. Yet, the Democrats have made this allegation both subtly and as an election argument. Let's look at the facts. It is incontrovertible that Obama was a member of Trinity Church in Chicago for 20 years. It is incontrovertible that his minister, Rev. J. Wright, has been an outspoken proponent of a racist pro-Black, pro-African agenda. It is incontrovertible that Trinity requires its membership to pledge allegiance to Black leaders who espouse a pro-Black, pro-African philosophy (check the Trinity web site). Obama has the support of approximately 90% of the Black population in the US, whose major reason for supporting him appears to be that he's "one of us". A giant chip on the shoulder alleging that the only reason anyone could oppose Obama is to keep the black man down. All of the comments regarding race have emanated from the Democrats, including Obama who has used the 'don't look like them' lines as well as the 'they'll try to scare you ... he's black' line. Obama supporters have said that community organizer is code for being black. Obama supporters have said that the only way to show the world that the US isn't racist is to elect Obama. They say that the world wants Obama because he's black (though none have offered to set up a kingdom for Barry). The Republicans have stayed away from race. Pundits have noted that Republicans are afraid to even say it's night because they might have to use the word dark. During this election cycle, the only evidence of racism is on the Democrat's side.

Republicans have, however, pushed hard on the gender issue. From the consoling words that Hillary was "dis'd" to the protestations about their hot governor and lipstick, Republicans have used the mantra of gender discrimination. You must hate women if you don't love Sarah.

Pregnancy, bastards and hypocrites: Pick a side. Sarah's the grandmother of a bastard; Barry is a bastard - literally, his parents weren't married.

Dugs and alcohol: again, pick a side. Sarah's husband got a DUI 20 years ago, about the same time that Barry admitted that he was smoking dope and doing cocaine. No credence to the charge that he was dealing drugs as the Clinton team queried.

Is this the best that American politics can do?

O.K., let's clear the rhetoric. McCain is an angry geriatric who chose a young, right-wing, redneck, gun-toting, trailer trash, whore as a running mate. Obama is a leftist black bastard schmoozer, do nothing loser, former drug user, who chose a geriatric, inside the beltway, scoundrel (who has a lobbyist for a son), as a running mate.

Unfortunately, these are American's choices. One of these teams will be elected to govern the country. Now, let's drop the / Bush third term / Carter second term / George Soro's boy / racist / misogynist / invectives.

Can somebody please debate the issues?