Here’s where it started to go wrong:

Congress is considering measures that could have an adverse impact on Google’s business, including laws that could limit companies’ ability to deliver personally targeted online advertisements and rules that would allow telecommunications companies to charge different prices for different levels of Internet service.

At first I thought to myself, “what the heck does that mean?  ISPs already charge different prices for different service levels.”  Oh well, whatever, this article is about Schmidt supporting Obama so one goofy line is forgiveable right?  But oh no, it gets much worse.  Speaking as if she/they were an authority on the matter:

Mr. Obama’s stances on some issues important to Google remain unclear. Both the candidate and the company, however, have said they support limiting Internet service providers from charging different rates for different levels of service, saying it would be discriminatory and stifle innovation.

I’m not aware that Obama or anyone else have supported such limitations.  Such limitations make no sense at all.  What Obama and companies like Google, Microsoft, and others all DO support is what has become known as “net neutrality.”  Net neutrality isn’t about price levels for internet service.  It’s about limiting or banning internet service that discriminates against specific endpoints.  The closest thing I can think of to what the WSJ said is that one effect of this could be an ISP charging a higher price level for somebody else’s service.  

It would be like AT&T charging me extra, or intentionally giving me more dropped calls, if I use my iPhone service to call Dominos pizza instead of Pizza Hut, because Pizza Hut made a deal where they pay AT&T to sabotage phone calls to their competitors.

Price levels?  Come on WSJ, I use to respect you guys.

Here’s an idea.  I’ll give you a few bullet points about me, and you can decide whether or not this label applies.

• I believe in minimizing the size of government.
• I think politics should be dealt with as locally as possible.
• I dislike the notion of “redistribution of wealth” and pretty much despise welfare and the culture that tends to develop around it.
• I think balancing the budget is important and that our debt and its continued growth are out of control.
• My political ideal is that people are free to make bad choices and that they should be held responsible for the consequences. 

Those are a few aspects of my political philosophy that I consider to be “conservative” in nature.

But then there are these:

• I do not believe in God or heaven.
• I think science should be taught in science class.  In school I learned about the Greek and Roman gods like Zeus and Venus.  If you want to teach about creation myth in that context that is fine with me.
• I do not think the entire world should be like America.  I’m in Italy as I write this up and it seems perfectly great just the way it is.

Confused yet?  That’s just the beginning.

I do not “support abortion.”  I can imagine no circumstances in which one would be a part of my life, and if someone asked me whether they should have one there are very few circumstances where I would even pause to consider an answer other than “no.”

But I support abortion rights, or at least oppose any ban on them at the federal level.  I do not believe that anyone can conclusively determine “when life begins” and that giving an unborn fetus rights is a slippery slope that ends with banning contraceptives.  I consider this to be a “small government” position, and would prefer that such determinations be handled at the state level if necessary.

I support gay marriage.  Not just in that I support the right of gay people to be married, but much more – I think that a gay couple who are in love and planning to spend their lives together should get married.  I don’t think the law should say anything about it either way, but my core beliefs place a great deal of value on a societal commitment being he absolute goal of a romantic relationship.

Basically, I value monogamy and embrace our societies’ decision to formalize it.  Furthermore, I believe that gay relationships are as real, natural, and valuable as heterosexual ones.  Combine those two values and the result is that I support gay marriage.

Given the above, I never know how to answer if someone asks me for my political affiliation.  Right now I support the democrats, believing that they represent leadership more in tune with my values, including the conservative ones.

On the other hand, these posts are entirely seasonal, and will most likely end completely after barely more than another month.  If you can bare with them, you may actually find value in my perspective, even if you don’t share it or agree with my political ideology.  I strive to make sure each of my posts has some unique value and is not just a link or “Go Obama!” cheerleading.  In fact, I greatly value the opinions and perspectives of others, so if you do disagree with what I write, my preference would be for you to respond!  Tell me how you see the world, and perhaps we can learn from each other’s perspectives =)

“John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics — we’re really going to shake things up in Washington,’” he said.

“That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

How you go from that to a “sexist” attack on Governor Palin is pretty mind-blowing, even for the McCain smear-mongers.

Governor Sarah Palin…

1) Was a member of (and still supports) the Alaska Independence Party, which believes that Alaska’s statehood is “illegal” and its admission the United States was made possible by “occupational troops.”

2) Opposes sex education and supports abstinence-until-marriage education. The same education that failed her pregnant unwed teenage daughter. The same education that has had disastrous effects in sub-Saharan Africa and has cost countless lives.

3) Cut funding for a group that helps teen mothers (like her daughter).

4) Sat in at a Jews For Jesus sermon two weeks ago, sponsored by her church, where the speaker said that anti-Israeli terrorism was “God’s Judgement.”

5) Was vetted over the course of almost an entire day for the position as McCain’s running mate.

6) Hired a lobbyist with ties to Jack Abramoff, and was for Ted Stevens before she was against him.

7) Thinks an oil pipeline is “God’s will”.

8 ) Has no experience with lawmaking or national government, but has misrepresented her experience with the national guard.

9) As mayor, increased government expenditures by 33%, and increased taxes collected by the city by 38%.

10) Is an alarming example of the kind of judgment that McCain and his people would exercise when choosing a Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

#11 Oh dear.  Just after I published this, another story broke.  Palin claimed last week to be a “reformer” who worked to end the “abuses of earmark spending in Congress.”  And yet, as governor she proposed 31 earmarks totaling $197 million – more, per person, than any other state.

To paraphrase a bit from Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

What her selection reveals about McCain is that he is a risk-taker who makes snap decisions “from the gut.” He liked Palin. She looked like a maverick and a bit like himself.  He didn’t invest the time or resources to look into her deeply. This isn’t about Palin’s readiness to be president, it’s about McCain’s readiness to be president. His first real executive decision, and he made it a shallow, incompetent, and reckless one.

Found this slightly amusing.

My greatest concern with McCain is how different he is today from the man he was a year or two ago.  I feel that he’s compromised far too many of his principles, and turned the wrong direction on many issues – apparently believing that is how he will get elected.  What do you think?  Did John McCain sell is his soul to win the primary?  If he wins, which John McCain will walk into the white house?  The one from two years ago?  Or the one campaigning today?

I partake in these discussions as an Obama supporter.  However, I have always spoken highly of both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.  Clinton was our senator when I lived in NY before moving to Washington.  She was good for NY, and I think she is a very efficient politician who fights for the needs of those who vote for her. 

McCain is a friend to my family, being an outspoken supporter of my uncle, former Blue Angels commander Bob Stumpf, when he was wrongly punished during and after the mishandled “tailhook” investigation that lasted from 1991-1996 (a wrong that was righted, to some degree, under the Bush administration).  I have a deep respect for John McCain because of how he defended my uncle’s honor even when it was unpopular to do so, how he served our great country bravely in Vietnam, and how he continues to serve our country today in the US Senate.

I supported McCain’s bid for the Republican nomination in 2000, and I was obviously quite disappointed at the outcome of that race (an outcome that I think many wise Republicans regret to this day).  I have no ill words for McCain.  He’s a great man, and I am happy that he won the nomination this time around.  However, as you already know – I am supporting Barack Obama come November.  I won’t get into my reasons here, but I believe at this time that he is the best hope we have for the future of our country.

Unfortunately, what I see happening today is quite similar to something I saw back in 2000 and 2004.  Instead of focusing on issues of substance, too many of us focused on distractions – like picking apart every sample of mangled pronunciation or nervous misspeaking that came out of George W. Bush.  I do not exempt myself from this criticism, but instead will hope that I have matured a bit since then.

More than that, I’d like to hope that we all have.  If for no other reason, out of necessity.  During the 2000 election season we were riding an economic bubble, we weren’t in any wars, and we didn’t really feel threatened by any earthly enemies.  Childish discourse was perhaps a luxury we could afford.  Things have changed quite a bit since then, and I think this demands a change in our politics as well.

Senators Obama and McCain have a chance to do that.  But this kind of change cannot happen on one side of the aisle and not the other.  Both sides need to recognize that we have two smart, capable, patriotic candidates who love this country and want to do what’s best for it.

Senator McCain – I ask this of you:  Tell your supporters that you don’t want them to practice the kind of petty political sensationalism that I described in the first paragraph of this post.  Tell them that you don’t want to win this election based on lapel pins, mixed up names of 65 year-old battlegrounds, or who may have lived in the other guy’s neighborhood.  What’s more, tell them you don’t want to lose this election based on your own occasional faux pas, unsubstantiated fears about your mental well-being, or unfounded concerns about your age.

Tell them that your campaign is about who will best lead this country.  Tell them it is not about rumors, fear mongering, or tabloid sensationalism.

Don’t think about whether this is the right way to win.  Think about whether this is the right thing to do.  I believe Barack Obama will make the same gesture (to a large extent, he already has), and that he will call on his supporters to recognize and respect Senator McCain’s action and his desire to elevate our political discourse.

If he does not, then you will win, having proven that he is not the candidate so many of us think he is.  If he does, and this should be our shared hope, then we all win.

The ball is in your court, Senator.

To prove his point, Rush says he did some Google searches for “Great Depression” and then proceeds to attack each of the results as liberal propaganda.  Because we all know that college professors teach straight off of Google results pages.  So my friend is listening and hears something rather striking… the name of one of our mutual colleagues – Paul Alexander Gusmorino (“The Third!” – I love the way Limbaugh says that).  

Limbaugh found among the top results an essay written by Paul, entitled “The Main Causes of the Great Depression,” (link goes to essay).  He quotes Paul’s essay and refutes each of its claims, dissecting them as if they were part of a Harvard professor’s lecture on the subject.  He doesn’t pull any punches either.  “Mr. Gusmorino, you better check Karl Marx and see if you plagiarized him in putting this piece together.”

Ouch.  Those words would be harsh if they really were for a Harvard lecturer.  But that’s not who wrote this essay.  It was my friend who works as a Program Manager at Microsoft.

When he was in 10th grade.

Regardless of what happens, I do hope someone will call out Senator Clinton for that attack in just the way suggested over at Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

The result of this analysis may surprise you, especially if you believe Hillary’s claims that she’s the only one who knows "how to get things done in Washington."

Here are a couple examples from the article:

In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she’s fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation", while Obama’s bill will "stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development."  After looking at the two bills, Obama’s appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.

Speaking of Obama, here’s a list of some of his proposed legislation.

Four bills on energy including
• S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil;
•S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes. 

Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama’s alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton’s bill again had no co-sponsors.

The author, Randall, outlines some of the most important reasons I support Obama.  And rather than copy what he wrote, I’ll just let you go read it yourself.

Better yet, watch the video.

That’s all I can say.  You owe it to yourself to read every word.

Watching him speak, as in that video, I can’t help but feel that he’s every bit as good a speaker as Bill Clinton.  That’s where Hillary often disappoints.  Hence my twitter tonight, “Anyone else think Obama is more like Clinton than Clinton?”