Land of the Free?

As I was watching news reports in the days after the Iowa Straw Poll, and listening to conservative talk radio shows in the same time, something struck me as odd...

The very same talk show hosts on the AM dial who prior to the Ames Straw Poll where billing it as a relevant event, marking true support for "America's Candidate", were now debunking the results... and why??? Because the big news out of the event was that Mike Huckabee, the underfunded underdog came in a awe inspiring second place and was the media favorite after the contest...

So the Pro-Romney, Pro-Rudy AM radio hosts who have been responding to Pro-Huckabee callers with "Good guy, doesn't stand a chance" were eating their words... Yes, I am talking about Rush, Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt...

And then it really got me thinking about how we are going about choosing our next President... when a man with as much Message as Romney has Money is belittled because he is not the talk show's favorite, and the host keeps repeating those words "doesn't have a chance", then I ask this simple question: How is this Presidential election any different than the 2005 Iranian Presidential election?

The answer... It Isn't!

In Iran, the Guardian Council sifts through the field of candidates and selects the candidates that THEY think are fit to run for president. There are no real primaries, no real pre-contests... it is who the Council decides should run, and the people hear that the guardian council has selected a field of candidates, all else are not worthy.

In the US, the Media and Talk shows anoint the candidates that they think are fit to run for president. The primaries are no longer on election day, but on the front page of TIME, or on talk radio shows where the "other" candidates are asteriks candidates, and their beloved Mitt Romney (who is still in single digits nationwide) is always granted the title of debate winner, or poll winner, because the other candidates don't count anyway (almost a direct quote from Hugh Hewitt). The Media decides who should get the airtime, who's name they will praise and who's name they will be debunking. The people hear the Guardian Council... I mean the Media Elites... and see that all else are not worthy in their eyes.

So are we getting the elected officials we deserve? Are we falling for the carrots at the end of the media elite's stick?

With 25% of the GOP vote going to "other/unknown", you have to wonder what candidate we are going to settle for... "Tell us, oh wise council of elite media, for we no longer have the ability to be free thinkers..."

OR, we can rise up, as we did in Iowa... time and again, supporting a candidate with executive experience and a strong Jeffersonian message... We can use this election to take back America, restoring it back to the wonderful Land of the Free... We can look at candidates with substance, intelligence, and core conservative values. Look in your hearts... you know what is right.

Do we want to live in a land of the elite ruling class, or do we want to live in the America that our forefather's endowed us with... the free land, where the government does not rule, the media does not rule, but the people... the common people... you and me... we rule, because we are free.

Reject the elite class. Flood their phone lines with calls. Fill their e-mail inboxes with letters. Send them letter after letter to fill their studio. Organize rallies outside their broadcasting buildings, demanding support for a Jeffersonian candidate willing to give power back... Take the power back from the elites, or suffer at the hands of their appointed leaders.

God Bless!

Democrats Debate... YouTube Style...

Last night, America watched as the much hyped CNN/YouTube debate unfolded... The first 5 minutes were used to discuss which videos were not chosen, and why, what the format was supposed to be, and to once again claim the debate's innovative nature.

I took notes during the entire debate... what was the question, who answered, and did I consider it a positive or a negative response (not down political lines, but rather in the candidates body language, knowledge of the topic, and comfort in talking "face to face" with the everyday American)

I am not going to go through my notes line by line, but I am going to hit a few highlights...

Anderson Cooper, the moderator, is OBVIOUSLY an Obama supporter. Cooper would direct general questions to the candidates, and for the first 35 minutes, Obama fielded twice as many questions as Hillary or Edwards... Mike Gravel fielded one question in the first 35 minute segment, and stopped the debate to complain about it... Cooper gave him more time later on... It took Cooper 20 minutes to FINALLY ask Bill Richardson a question... By that time Obama had answered three... In short, Cooper needs to determine a better way to distribute the questions... though by the third segment, he gave all the candidates 3-4 questions evenly... so he found his rhythm...

The questions covered the main-stream issues... but there were a few "dinner table" questions, and definitely a more personalized way of asking some of the mainstream questions... I appreciated the human-factor... as opposed to the Wolf Blitzer Robotic debate, where if you don't answer correctly Wolf will keep grilling you until you answer his question his way (like he did to Huckabee on creationism)... There were awkward moments like the candidates fielding question from snowmen... but in all, the idea was to keep the questions in a very YouTube-esque manner... It worked.

The winners? John Edwards did a great job challenging Obama and Clinton, and I think showed his compassion towards women's issues... and definitely out shined Clinton on the women's issues question. Gravel angrily came out against Clinton and Obama, using what little time he has left on the stage to make some deep wounds... and Biden almost made it into this category, right up until the end...

The losers? Biden... he had a lot of momentum, until he called the gun owner a mental wack-job just because he referred to his AR-15 as "his baby"... he even went as far as saying that the video submitter was most likely not mentally capable of owning his weapon, and suggested that he may be a danger to society... Mr Biden... The only danger is you, my friend. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson really needed to break out, and they didn't. This may be the last debate with them in it. Richardson has one of the best messages on Energy Independence, but he just can't seem to be "interesting". Clinton yells... a lot! And it is really hard to think that she is a compassionate person when all she does is yell... strike-out in my book... Dennis Kucinch needed to shine, and this was supposed to be his format... he did alright, but it was just shy of being put in the winner's block... and the loserest loser of all the losers... Barack Hussein Obama... in any given answer there were 15-20 "Umm", "Uh", and other fumbles as he looked for the right thing... his inexperience was in full swing, and though his answers may have been on message, they lacked the ease and intelligence that our next president needs to have.

If I had to call it, I would say that we are looking at the fall of Clinton/Obama, and the rise of Edwards/Biden (but Biden needs to make ammends with the gun-owners of the world)... Perhaps Richardson is going to be a VP pick... so we may see Edwards/Richardson as the democratic ticket for the general election...

Though my question was not picked, the very first question was mine but asked by someone else... I am going to focus on submitting a few perfect videos for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate in September... Hopefully Huckabee is still in the running, and gaining more momentum!

God Bless!