Political advertisements on both sides of the aisle often strain credibility.  It can be tough appearing humble when you have the drive and determination necessary get within a couple of hanging chads of being leader of the free world.  But what does it say about you when you place paid advertisting proclaiming yourself the winner of a debate that hasn't happened yet?  I think Chez at Deus Ex Malcontent has the question right, but whether the source of problem lies with the candidate or his organization the fact that the advertisements ran reflects very poorly on the candidate's credibility and capacity to run the nation.

Back in the day, Republicans were champions of the free market.  At least in theory they favored laissez-faire economics.  Given time the markets would sort themselves out in a reasonably efficient manner.

Economic theory took a back seat to political expediency in several notable examples during the last seven years.  The airlines (and their security contractors) couldn't be held accountable for the failures of 9/11 because the airlines constituted a vital sector of the economy.  The telecoms needed and received civil immunity for whatever it did to the American people on behalf of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, because their cooperation was vital to our national security.  Just this month, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed taxpayer dollars to protect their role in the home mortgage crisis industry, which some say is vital to the economy.  

Whatever happened to individual responsibility?  Those used to be a Republican buzzwords, but they've faded from the lexicon lately.  

The absence was even pronounced in John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night.  According to the transcript, President Bush was never referred to by name.  As amazing as this is, the candidate of the President's party running to succeed him in office wants change but has nothing whatsoever to say about the current office holder.  Unless McCain is arguing that Bush actually made no decisions during the last eight years, a conspiracy theory I've heard advanced in other quarters (though generally as a joke), at some point the man has to be held accountable for his actions.

I had the same problem eight years ago when I decided not to vote for Gore because as an idealistic and new attorney, not to mention former federal law enforcement officer, I couldn't accept his refusal to publicly condemn President Clinton for his perjury.  For this voter, some things just need to be said publicly.  Gore needed to do it then, and McCain needed to do it Thursday.

McCain is now in a similarly awkward position, but one that I'd hoped his highly-touted ethics and maverick streak would have guided him through.  He claims to be an agent of change, but in this speech couldn't or wouldn't renounce those individuals who brought us to this point.  A campaign of change implies that things have gone wrong, but a refusal to identify the causes of the needs for change suggest a state of denial that make his pledge of change seem lukewarm at best.

First semi-conscious reaction to this morning's big news: McCain's chosen a Monty Python alum as his running mate?

Slightly more caffeinated reaction: McCain's chosen who as his running mate? 

Sarah Palin?  OK, according to her entry at Wikipedia, apparently she has some very strong reformer credentials, and has a history of bucking the Republican establishment.  I can see both elements attracting the attention of the McCain campaign.

But doesn't her selection cripple the McCain argument that Obama's lack of experience should preclude him from being elected President?  She has no national political experience, and has only been in statewide office since her election as governor of Alaska in 2006.  I think the pendulum on experience may have swung back to a position where the Obama campaign can use that 3 a.m. phone call advertisement that Clinton used against Obama during the primaries. 

I'm still looking to learn more about Mrs. Palin, but I have to be honest in thinking that my first reaction is that the nomination offers nothing substantive toward governance of the country, but is simply a brazen appeal to those demographics still upset the Hillary Clinton isn't on the Democratic Party ticket in some role.

Welcome to the new America, which is the same as the old America.

That was my thought this morning after watching a week of the right trying very hard, in my opinion, to keep women 'barefoot and pregnant'. You may disagree with me right now, but let's take a closer look at why I say this.

First off, we have the Bush administration trying to label birth control as 'abortion'. Now, this is rather shocking, and I'm surprised that more news outlets aren't covering this possible change.

What about a woman's right to choose when or if she gets pregnant? What about safe sex to help curtail the spread of sexually transmitted diseases? Or was the current administration hoping that with the American public concerned about Iraq, rising gas costs, and the coming election, they could sneak in this change of law to force the women of this country to their ways of thinking?

Senators McCain and Obama were both in town in recent days to discuss immigration and their visions of "comprehensive reform." Apparently they both think they can bend the next Congress to their wills and implement their proposals, whatever they are.

I doubt it.

I don't doubt their sincerity to address a tough issue, just the ability of either candidate to achieve a consensus as to what the problem is and how to address it.

John McCain talks about victory in Iraq. He has not given a coherent description of "victory in Iraq" - but claims victory is a moral necessity, as well as imperative to our security. Barack Obama's 16-month timetable is now being "refined." This is a politically calculated move to the center or a continuation of Obama's promise that the US  "must be as careful getting out of Iraq as it was reckless going in."

Either way, it's a vague policy at best.

Over the holiday weekend, I did some catching up on recent public statements made by Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. I read a little about Barack Obama's response to the unhappy left regarding his Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) vote for telecom immunity, and "refining" his message about Iraq troop withdrawals. I also read, for the first time, that John McCain admitted he does not know how to operate a computer and relies heavily on help from his wife for anything computer related. Assuming none of the above campaign messages were unintentional gaffes, I realized again that, inevitably, disappointment over compromise comes up during a presidential campaign.  

But how much compromise is too much?

The FISA vote stuck in my throat. I've written before about why I believe it's important to treat the Bush-era super-sized version of FISA with extreme care. Although the current policy voted on last week is more narrowly tailored, the idea that Senator Obama voted in FISA's favor frankly surprised me. Immediately, the skeptic in me jumped to the conclusion that the senator was already flip-flopping. 

But then he did something beautiful: He responded. 

I am a member of the worst coed softball team in San Diego. Some of my teammates play for fun, some of us play to win, most of us argue.

We are unanimous in only one arena - losing - every game we play. We usually lose the old fashioned way -- by sucking. Though our most recent loss represents a diversification of our losing ways; disqualified for too few women.*

The ump stuck by the rules of the league; unmoved by our arguments, complaints, excuses, tantrums and cries. He interpreted the rules and dropped the forfeit hammer down. Game over. Until next week.

In a patently political gambit, John McCain recently pointed to the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene versus Bush as one of the worst decisions in the court's history. Among others labeling the decision as an astonishing case of judicial activism, is Citizen Voices blogger Trina Boice. She is clear and succinct in advocating her position:

"Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to grant terrorists the same privileges as U.S. citizens. Judicial activism continues to grow around the country, allowing judges to play politics, circumvent the lawmaking process and assume the powers of legislating. Does that bother anyone else or am I still the freak here? The Constitution is threatened when judges change the definition of social institutions and reinterpret approved laws in order to reflect their own policy preferences."

Venturing an answer to Trina's question: you're no freak, Trina. You simply do yourself a disservice by relying on talking points that simplify weighty constitutional arguments. It is worth pointing out that the detainees held at Guantanamo are most certainly guilty of something; be it terrorism, unlawful combat, conspiracy to commit terrorism or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Chuck's blog started me thinking what it actually means to "vote one's conscience." My computer dictionary defines conscience "as an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior." Since that sounded reasonable and perhaps even a bit noble, I decided to investigate what this could mean to the election. Initially, I intended to point out the pitfalls inherent in such an action since I will never get over what Ralph Nader's narcissistic candidacy did to this country in 2004.

I was embarrassed to realize I knew nothing about Bob Barr so I dedicated several hours to investigating his political career, the positions he allegedly represents, who supports him. I began by watching all the videos on his campaign Web page. Over and over again, I heard him say he would appeal to Independents and large groups of young people.

Young people? Why young people... oh I get it... he hopes to inherit all of Ron Paul's devotees. Hmmm, I see he is also advertising for Web designers so I guess he is going to try to generate the grassroots online energy of Ron Paul's campaign. Ron Paul had a long history of relentlessly standing his Libertarian grounds, even when he was the only voice out there, but who is this Bob Barr who speaks of "abundant freedom for all"?