What the Stuff Is: The VP Debate, Why It Was Great and Why It Still Doesn't Matter

The media still can't get over the recent Vice-Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan. I can understand why -- it was pretty fiery and entertaining, especially when compared to the largely boring exchange between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney. As much as I enjoyed it, and as much as I believe that Biden won the debate, my original argument outlined in my last post still remains: debates don't matter. And, VP debates? They prove to be inconsequential to the actual outcome of the debate. Anyone who says otherwise is seriously fooling themselves.

Still, the debate has many people abuzzing about Biden's performance and Ryan's demeanor. Yes, Biden was pretty aggressive. He laughed and smiled and interrupted Ryan when he was giving his responses. For Democrats and liberals, it was purely cathartic. That's why liberals were going crazy over his performance: a Democrat finally had the balls to say what all Democrats are thinking about Ryan, Romney, and the Republicans. Biden not only used the facts but showed a stunning sense of exuberance and style and obviously made up for Obama's lacklustre performance.

The most interesting part about the debate's aftermath has to be the Republican's take on Biden's performance. They whined about his behaviour, that it was rude and outlandish and not Presidential -- meanwhile, Ryan can blatantly lie over and over again and that somehow makes him presidential. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, this always happen to the losing side: they begin a campaign to tarnish the opposing candidate in order to gain what they feel is their rightful victory. The Obama campaign did this last time, she said, with Obama supporters starting the phrase "testy Mitt." And now, we see the GOP -- a party whose candidates have snapped at moderators or attracts viewers that boo an openly gay soldier or cheer an uninsured man dying -- complaining about rudeness and disrespect.

Incredible.

The VP debates -- like all debates, really -- may be insignificant to the overall race, but as I've said before, they are perfect displays of the type of race we have on our hands. Biden, Ryan's own fact-checker, pushed the facts: that it is better than how it was four years ago, that relations with Israel is stable, that sanctions on Iran are stronger than they ever were, and that the Republicans would totally cripple the lower-class by privatizing Social Security and MediCare. Ryan, on the other hand, continued the inchoate character that plagued him since his convention speech, one of an unbelievable liar.

As Biden said as he turned and looked straight into the camera, "folks, use your common sense."

Feminist-In-Chief: Obama, Empowering Women, and the DNC

To be blunt, the Democrats put on a successful convention, one better than the Republicans on most regards. Note when I say "most" because, to be fair, speeches given at the Republican convention were actually pretty good. As I pointed out in my post about the RNC, Ann Romney gave a truly moving speech about her husband and likewise Chris Christie gave a fiery address that prompted presidential buzz. But, speeches at the RNC were marred with inconsistencies and blatant lies. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention were not, at least not at the level the RNC was. In fact, not only were the speeches brilliant and rousing, but they were also substantive and focused on the main goal: convincing the American public that President Barack Obama deserves a second term.

The Jobs Report which was released Friday is, I think, the most fitting conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The report shows exactly how much progress the Obama Administration made and will surely resonate more with Americans than a speech or tribute video. In August, the US economy added 96,000 jobs meaning that August is the 30th month of consecutive job growth. That's not bad considering the Republicans won't collaborate with Obama under any circumstances. That's not bad considering that the GOP shot down the Jobs Act last year which was estimated to create over 2 million jobs. However, 96,000 jobs are not enough to make a significant dent on the unemployment rate. That would take approximately 250,000 jobs to do that. But, the jobs report does prove that the Obama Administration does not hate the private sector since, according to Think Progress, 103,000 jobs were created. It also shows that Obama still has a long way to go to convince the American people that the economy will revive itself. The Jobs Report is not abysmal since it actually is an improvement from the US economy exactly 4 years ago, when it collapsed dramatically due to the stock market crash and the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. If anything, the Jobs Report is sobering to the Obama campaign and the Democrats amid the post-convention frenzy.

However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.

This is why.

The Convention did a great job of emphasizing the highlights of Obama's mandate and did an even better job of dispelling common myths propagated last week at the RNC. A number of speakers directly quoted speeches made in the week before in Tampa and then told the audience the truth. The truth being that the GM plant Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was talking about actually closed in 2008 under Bush. The truth being that the Affordable Care Act cuts money away from corporations to cut fraud in the health care system, not remove solvency from MediCare as much as the Republicans like to tout. The truth being that Obama has created more private sector jobs than the GOP would like to admit. The truth being that Obama cannot solely be blamed for the economic calamity that is occurring in America but the work he has done as rectification has been impressive. The truth being that it doesn't take just 4 years to get America back on track, something that Obama himself said in his 2009 inauguration speech. 

What the convention did most of all was to undergird the campaign with more optimism. The attacks on Ryan and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were present, of course. They have to be. But, the overall direction of the campaign was more focused on supporting the President and Vice President opposed to attacking the other side. Unlike his opponent, Obama refrained from criticizing Romney by name. A wise move as most people have chided the Obama campaign time and time again for being largely negative. 

But, of course, no political convention could be complete if there wasn't some speculation about potential presidential candidates for 2016. For the Democrats, they have a sizable playing field: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick are some of the most prominent and qualified. However, instead of giving narcissistic speeches for the campaign in coming years, they gave gracious speeches that were autobiographical in tone but supportive for Obama in heart. Unlike Christie, the keynoter for the RNC, whose speech rife with 2016 hints.

Although, that doesn't mean that the Democratic National Convention wasn't tact since it reaped the benefits from the oversights made in the RNC. For instance, the DNC are now unequivocally the party of gay rights. According to the Democrats, it's not about sexual orientation anymore. It's about "who you love," thereby spreading a much more positive issue that would render the topic of same-sex marriage as hard to refute. The Democrats seized and pounced on the opportunity to mention veterans and the troops fighting in Afghanistan, something that the Republicans didn't do at all. A military mom, Jill Biden gave a pleasant speech about her son in combat. Michelle Obama, whose speech was phenomenal, was introduced by a military mom as tribute to Obama and Biden's work for military families. Tammy Duckworth is now a Democratic Senatorial candidate who is placing military and veteran issues on the table.

And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.

This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.

First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.

Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.

As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:

Indeed, we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of American life — whether it’s the salary you earn or the health decisions you make.

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world. 

My first piece of advice is this: Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. 

No woman’s signature graced the original document — although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers.

So think about what that means to a young Latina girl when she sees a Cabinet secretary that looks like her. (Applause.) Think about what it means to a young girl in Iowa when she sees a presidential candidate who looks like her. Think about what it means to a young girl walking in Harlem right down the street when she sees a U.N. ambassador who looks like her. Do not underestimate the power of your example. 

Those are just some of the things Obama said in his speech at Barnard. Now, for his speech at last week's Democratic Convention:

We believe the little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States, and it’s in our power to give her that chance. 

If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void ... [like] Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves. 

The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter, she gives me hope.

Romney didn't have anything like this in his speech nor did any other speaker talk so candidly about advancing the rights of women. But, as Republicans are quick to point out, issues like women's rights "don't matter" since they're not as "important" as the economy. Well, the Republicans are not in the position to comment on the economy since they are, in fact, the party responsible for the calamity. Moreover, to dismiss women's issues is to dismiss issues that directly affect half of the US population. To say that prosperity only depends on finances is completely myopic and negligent. No longer do we live in a time where women's issues are contained in a box only to be opened when the debate is heated. Now, we live in a time where women's issues are everyone's issues.

And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.

The Globe and Fail: John Ibbitson on Mitt Romney for Canada

This past Wednesday, during the Republican National Convention, the Globe and Mail featured an interesting article written by one of their regular columnists John Ibbitson. The article was essentially making the case on why Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be a good president for Canadian interests. The wonderful blogger SixthEstate brought this article to my attention and used it to further dispel the myth of Liberal media in Canada. The Globe and Mail, to be frank, is not liberal. While it's true they have occasional bursts of insight, they mostly write incredulous articles like this one or this one.

Anyways, the piece starts off with an encouraging statistic, one that would give Ibbitson a difficult time convincing Canadians that Romney should win the top job: 66% of Canadians would vote for President Barack Obama compared to the 9% who would vote for Romney. Now, Ibbitson says that you, the 66%, should reconsider your position, a position that would prove to be inconsequential to the election since it's not the approval of Canadians that matters here. But, reconsider regardless!

Ibbitson then goes on to say that Romney would "know Canada more than any other president in history," even though there is speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Ireland to Quebec; even though Franklin D. Roosevelt had a home in Canada and traveled to Canada more than any other president due to relations during wartime. But, Romney spent his youth vacationing there and lived in Detroit therefore he must've gone to Windsor since the two cities are so close. This is a new trend I'm noticing among Republicans: that traveling somehow counts as foreign policy experience. On Meet the Press, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said that because Romney was involved in business transactions overseas and was once a Mormon missionary, he has enough foreign policy experience to be president. Traveling to a country obviously doesn't make you an expert on their political culture and style of governance. And yet, Republicans and the Globe and Mail it seems are quick to suggest otherwise since travelling gives you a "sense" of what that country is like. But, if people are going to run for president and claim that they will get America back on the world stage, then it would be useful for them to acquire more than just a "sense" of the rest of the world. Of course, this idea is more than just beyond noxious, it's also glowing proof of the misguided, myopic lens that Republicans and Republican-sympathizers like Ibbitson use to see the rest of the world.

In contrast, Ibbitson says, President Barack Obama has only visited the country a few times prior to being Commander-in-Chief and thought that the country is cold. While it is true that Obama has only visited Canada once as President and vetoed against the Keystone XL pipeline which would create dozens of jobs, to say that Obama doesn't "know" Canada is a little absurd.* Relations between the two countries are not at an all-time low, despite what two professors at Carleton argue. In fact, the two countries are increasingly growing similar, mostly due to the Conservative government we have in Canada.

The article progresses to briefly discuss the plans both candidates have for the economy, which is Romney's strength according to poll results. Unlike Obama, Ibbitson says, Romney actually has a plan even though it's "stupid." So, according to Ibbitson, a plan that is fiscally irresponsible is much better than what Obama has been doing, working without a budget. Well, that's not exactly true, Ibbitson. Obama has proposed a budget in the not-too-distant past, May 2012, which fell to humiliating defeats in both the House of Representatives (414-0) and the Senate  (99-0). Obama's budget for the 2013 fiscal year was regarded as a fair, balanced, and responsible proposal, one that would help the middle class to drive the economy. There was a substantial amount of investment in education and clean energy while maintaining MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Not to mention, Obama even tried to reach for compromise with the Republicans by tabling spending cuts and by preserving defense spending. These were things that are not mentioned in Ibbitson's article even though a healthy, robust American economy thought to be generated by this budget would likewise benefit Canada.

Ibbitson concludes by taking the opposite position, listing all the ways in which Romney would fail to deliver Canadian interests as President of the United States. His major flaw is that he's a Republican which means he believes in tax cuts for the rich, opposing gay rights, threatening military action in Iran, no abortions under any circumstance, and agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. Canadians take the exact opposite stance as Romney. We believe in higher taxes for the wealthy, equality for gays and lesbians, the women's right to choose, and a steadfast refusal to broadcast his show in Canada or for Canadian bands to have their music featured on his program. On Iran, we take the United States' approach to push for more sanctions, but Iran still views Canada more favourably than the US or UK.

After weighing the two sides, Ibbitson then refutes his initial position on Romney and said that there isn't a case for him after all! While this is the best sentence in the article, it renders the editorial pointless and Ibbitson sheepish for failing to take a proper stance. Is Ibbitson here trying to engender debate among Canadians on Romney by elucidating on his past and connections to Canada? Like I said, that debate is inconsequential to the actual result of the election. However, that doesn't mean it's not important for Canada to consider the policies of both candidates. We definitely should since we have economic, diplomatic, and military ties to the United States. And, it doesn't mean that Canadian Media should not cover the US election since it technically has nothing to do with us. The amount of coverage in the national newspapers has been adequate, with the Globe and Mail's "Canadians living in the US" feature and the regular dispatches in the National Post from star columnist Andrew Coyne.

Canadians need to consider the ramifications of both outcomes, either a second-term for Obama or a first mandate for Romney. But, it's best if they do it without the help of Ibbitson's article.

*Besides, Obama is believed to reconsider his original position anyways.

Destroying Things Is Much Easier Than Making Them

Current affairs magazines are probably the most widely-sought after publications for lengthy political commentary and interesting viewpoints from engaging and familiar columnists. One of the most interesting -- and probably the most palatable -- features of the magazine happens to be the magazine cover. Throughout this election season, there have been great magazine covers depicting the race as a physical aggression between foes. Popular magazines such as The Atlantic and Newsweek have given their own interpretation of the blood-thirsty competition that is the Presidential Election.

This year, both Newsweek and The Atlantic took the political race, either the Republican primaries or the general election, and turned it into a vicious battle between enemies and translated it onto their covers. In a way, this is perfect. 

Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival.   Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.

This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.

This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant. 

However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"

It didn't just come about. It was always there.

Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?

Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.

The Chain Game

Last week, Vice President Joe Biden remarked that the GOP will soon usher the American people back in chains during a rally in Virginia. The exact words Biden used to convey this idea to a mostly African-American audience was, "Unchain Wall Street. They're gonna put y'all back in chains." Now, if you haven't see the video, it's available here.

Soon after, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who is African-American, said that Biden's comments were offensive since he used the word 'y'all,' commonly used in Ebonics therefore referring to strictly the African-Americans, and by evoking slavery with the use of 'chains.' Republicans have decried Biden for this remark, demanding an apology at this instant. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum hilariously gave his own take on State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the transcript from this week's show in which Santorum breaks down Biden's comments:

RICK SANTORUM: It's one thing to go out and attack Governor Romney's record. Fair game, go for it. But to go out and do what he's doing as far as dividing this country, and he is. And it's class warfare at its worst, and then you saw Vice President Biden, you know, play the race card in Virginia. This... 

[JIM] ACOSTA: Did he play the race card?

SANTORUM: There's no -- y'all? I mean, y'all is y'all. And when you are in a group, I have been in groups like that, and you know, it is very easy when you are in a group of people that, you know, when you are in a south or in up in different areas of the country and different groups of people, and you develop an affinity with the group that you are speaking in front of, that is what president -- Vice President Obama was doing. He was trying to develop that affinity and he did so in a very horrendous way. And he should apologize for it, but it is exactly the tone of this campaign. Governor Romney is like any other candidate, you want to go after my record, you want to go after things I've said and done, fine. That's not what he's -- that's not the complaint of the Romney campaign. The complaint -- the legitimate complaint is that President Obama is dividing this country to try to win this election.

I have to take issue with a number of things Santorum is saying here.

First, isn't Santorum the same person who said he didn't want to make black people's lives better? So, Santorum is easily the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. Second, Santorum cited the overall tone of the election campaign this year. While I admit it is pretty nasty, it is nasty on both sides -- not just President Barack Obama's campaign and not just Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A shining example of Romney's equal guilt in souring the campaign would be his completely false attack on Obama claiming he will end the work requirement for welfare. Moreover, Romney has said that Obama's heart is "full of hate." Now, that's as nasty as they come. And lastly, Biden did not play the race card.

Biden here referred to the GOP's plan to "unshackle" the free market and businesses everywhere in America. What Biden was implying was that the exact opposite will happen to ordinary Americans if Romney becomes President: that Americans will be shackled, that they will be restricted, and that they will be in chains.*

The popular Republican talking point on this issue -- or any issue when race becomes involved in the rhetoric of a Democratic politician -- was that if it was a Republican making this issue, the Democrats would be equally as livid and would demand the same apology. But, the thing is, when the Republicans make comments about race, there is a reason to believe that they are, in fact, racist or discriminatory. And that's because actions speak louder than words.

To wit, here are some of the things that Republicans plan to do either vis-a-vis the party's representatives in congress or the platforms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
-Suppressing votes by making picture identification mandatory which would affect the African-American population in certain swing states like Florida thereby reducing Obama's chances to win.
- Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's proposal to gut Food Stamps which assist close to 22% of African-Americans
- Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act pejoratively called 'Obamacare' which would severely affect the Black community as close to 50% of the uninsured are African-American or Latino.
- Ryan and Romney's plan to end Medicare thereby exacerbating medical costs for Black seniors which, according to an article in The Grio, could be "deadly."**

And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how the Republicans' policy negatively affect the African-American community.

So, when Democrats -- who oppose all of these proposals, by the way -- make a comment that people construe as "racial," it's not, in fact, racist because their policy easily undergird their beliefs in equality among all races. But, when Republicans make the same comment, it's easier to believe that they want to oppress minorities and make it harder for them academically and financially. And that is because actions, like policy, speak louder than words.


*To be honest, when I first heard Biden's comments, I thought he was referencing the famous lines written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Given with the Republican's platform to debilitate the working and middle class by their outrageous proposals to gut Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans thereby shifting the costs onto ordinary Americans all while under the guise of preserving "liberty" and "freedom," you couldn't blame me for making this assumption.
**Information to compile this concise list can be found here, here, here, and here.

Akin to Disgust

Republican Representative Todd Akin said some pretty heinous comments over the weekend regarding rape. I mean, they were downright false and insulting to women everywhere. For those of you unaware, here are all the things wrong with Todd Akin's comments:

1. The female body does not secrete a substance or withhold fertilization or somehow stop eggs from producing when faced with rape.

2. Akin said in cases of "legitimate rape." Then, what constitutes as illegitimate rape? When she actually becomes pregnant, according to Akin's pretzel logic? When she is drugged? When she is unconscious? When she is a minor? 

3. That abortion should not be granted to rape victims, period. Although, this is pretty much the common sentiment among the GOP, including Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

4. That Akin is a man who thinks he knows better than women as to the decisions she should make when faced with the awful trauma of rape. 

I could go on and on about how Akin is just fundamentally wrong.* I could also elucidate on the Republican agenda on abortion and reproductive rights. But, instead, I want to focus on Akin's response to this whole debacle which is his decision to stay in the race for the Senate seat in Missouri against incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. She is, in fact, fighting for him to stay despite members of his own party -- like Republican National Committee President Reince Priebus -- to drop out. This is a shrewd move by her, but a logical one. By fighting for Akin to stay in, she ultimately wins. Voters are then confronted by the choice of the incumbent -- who usually has a greater chance of winning anyways -- and a crazy Republican who believes in different forms of rape. McCaskill wins and she continues to help President Barack Obama and the Democrats. 

I'm siding with McCaskill, here. He should stay in. When he apologized for his comments, he merely apologized for the words he said not for the position he holds. So, of course, if Akin truly believes in these ideas of "legitimate rape" and the female body's ability to stop fertilization when raped, he should still be in and let voters decide what they want. And, if voters in Missouri decide they want to cast their ballot for Akin over McCaskill, then that would prove two things:

1. That Akin is emblematic of the mainstream Republican party and that there are no more moderate Republicans left in the fold since people are now demanding for the extreme and vitriolic. 

And 2. That America is in serious, serious trouble.


*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.

We're Not Going to Take It Anymore

The American election has taken a nasty turn, focusing on personal attacks, harsh -- and sometimes inaccurate -- advertisements decrying the other candidate. What was once a campaign of 'Hope' and 'Change' now is something else entirely for President Barack Obama. However, is Obama's new direction necessarily a bad thing?

Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).

As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.

The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.

The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.