While listening to a discussion about the cost of a barrel of oil hitting another new high, I heard that irritating phrase "addicted to oil". I think this is an absolutely ridiculous way to describe our dependence on oil. It's not like there is a choice between using oil or something else. It is like saying we are addicted to food, clothing, and shelter. These things are necessities and we have created a society where oil is pretty much a necessity. We were warned in the 1970's about the danger of relying so heavily on oil. Instead of creating new alternatives, this country's leadership not only did nothing, but kept us on a path to make us more dependent on oil. By saying we are addicted to oil it's like they are absolving themselves of any blame. Instead of saying we are addicted to oil, I'd like to hear it said that our leadership's lack of vision has left us stuck on oil.

After John McCain became the presumptive nominee and it was still unsure whether Obama or Clinton would be his opponent, I felt I would lean towards McCain if he ran against Clinton. I'm still hoping it's not Clinton, but if it is I'm not sure I could vote for McCain. I know he has this reputation for being a straight talker, but he is sounding more like a smooth talker saying what he must to get elected. FactCheck.org does a good job of exposing the lack of substance in McCain's proposals in "the budget according to McCain", part I and part II. This is ironic since he has accused Obama of giving speeches full of empty rhetoric. John McCain's 2013 speech is nothing but empty rhetoric and sounds more like a wish list. I know this is what politicians do, but it doesn't seem like straight talk to accuse your opponent of lacking substance, then offer the very same thing.

I am also concerned about McCain's attitude towards war. I can't put my finger on it, but he seems caught up in the whole honor and glory aspect of war. Whatever it is, I am worried about his ability to clearly see the difference between the need for a political solution versus a military solution. John McCain is also the candidate most likely to initiate a war. And I'm not talking about responding to an attack, but starting a war under questionable circumstances. John McCain is probably a good choice if we were electing someone to run the military, but I think he is a bad choice when it comes to electing the person who will decide when to use it.

It looks like McCain will be playing the fear card. He hasn't gone as far as saying electing a Democrat will guarantee another attack, but he seems to be heading down that road. I don't want another President who rules by creating fear, I want a President who leads by inspiring courage. Although, I must say that the fear card has affected me; I am now afraid of a candidate who will use it to get elected, because that candidate will most likely use the fear card to substantiate starting a war.

I do admire and respect John McCain for his service to our country. I probably would have voted for him if he was the nominee in 2000. Of course, I wasn't paying attention as closely back than as I am this time. Maybe I easily bought into the whole straight talk express thing. On the other hand, maybe he was a straight talker, but became discouraged after losing to dirty politics. It is possible that John McCain now believes you can't get elected with straight talk. Ironically, I think McCain used the straight talk express when he needed the smooth talk express and is now using the smooth talk express when he should be using the straight talk express. 

If you've watched the coverage of the Presidential Primary elections, then you are familiar with the never ending number of polls that keep coming. It seems like there about a half dozen new ones every day. The political pundits play up the importance of these polls, but rarely report on their accuracy. On numerous occasions the numbers have been way off and at times the polls have been dead wrong. Polls for events in the far future have been even more inaccurate than the short term ones. If we look back to the beginning of this whole process, Clinton and Giuliani were way ahead in the polls. Nobody was looking at the polls and talking about how Giuliani would be knocked out early and that Obama would be leading Clinton. It is hard to take these polls seriously, especially ones that are used to predict an election that is over five months away.

Even though these long term polls have proved unreliable, the political pundits will still play up the importance of them. Even the exit polls of today are being used to predict the General Election. In the beginning of the election we heard about how Barack Obama couldn't get a majority of the black vote, now we are hearing about how he won't be able to get the white vote. In the beginning the polls showed Barack winning virtually no states, now we are hearing he can't win certain states. In the beginning I don't believe there was a single poll that predicted Barack Obama would defeat the inevitable candidate Hillary Clinton and be able to take down the great Clinton political machine. The early polls of the Primary predicted nothing of how it turned out, so I find it hard to believe today's polls of how the General Election will turn out. It appears Barack Obama created a winning strategy for the Primary and I am inclined to believe he can do the same for the General Election. He certainly exceeded the early polls for the Primary, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again for the General Election.

In a previous entry titled Throwing Your Vote, I wrote about the disgraceful behavior of using your vote for the sole purpose of creating mischief. I was angry about it then, but after watching the media coverage of this issue, I am even further angered. All the political analysts talked about throwing your vote like it was a cute little sideshow. Although I believe the impact from this shameful act was minimal, even one person doing it or one person suggesting others do it, is an outrage. Violating the principles of free and fair elections is not the American way. The media should have harshly condemned this behavior. By covering it the way they did, it gave the appearance that throwing your vote is no big deal and acceptable behavior.

Ironically, the people who suggest and support throwing your vote, are the same ones who declared themselves the patriotism police. They act as if they are true patriots by judging everybody else's patriotism. These people need to look in the mirror. Throwing your vote or suggesting others do it, is not the act of a patriotic American. It not only dishonors our country, but degrades our credibility around the world. How can we call for other nations to have free and fair elections, when we are willing to condone behavior that violates this very principle? True patriotism is putting the needs of your country before your own selfish wants. And as far as I can tell, Operation chaos is something our country doesn't need and is just some people's selfish wants.

In a stump speech promoting the gas tax holiday, Hillary Clinton invoked the first rule of polarization 101, "if you're not with us, then you are against us". It is this mentality that has led to our country being so deeply divided. This is the same thing as, if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops; or, if you don't support immigration reform, you don't want to do what's right for America. Why can't I be with you, but want to do it a different way? To use the with us or against us line is like saying, if you don't want to do it my way, then you are the enemy. I also want to see relief from the high gas prices, but how about lowering them by strengthening the value of our weak dollar, which has contributed to the rise in oil prices and basically everything we import. Better yet, how about creating an environment where wages are dramatically increased so we can afford the high gas prices along with the rising food prices? I have to say, it is somewhat offensive when someone declares me their enemy because I disagree with their proposal to achieve a common goal.

It is this with us or against us mentality that has prevented the compromise which will enable us to solve problems. A true leader understands that you can't bring people together by insulting or declaring them your enemy. The partisan atmosphere we see today is a result of this polarizing line of thinking. Instead of solving problems, we end up with a divided government who spends a majority of their time trying to beat each other. This is like your left or right leg trying to beat the other to the finish line. If both legs moved forward at the same time we would certainly stumble and fall. It is only by the left and the right working together that we can move forward and reach the finish line. And this will not be possible with leaders who declare we must be with them or against them.

Is the gas tax holiday a realistic proposal or is it just political pandering? FactCheck.org does a great job of analyzing it and showing that it is not a good idea. It seems that most, if not all, economic experts feel the suspension of the gas tax for the summer is a questionable proposal. If this isn't political pandering, then it means that Hillary Clinton and John McCain feel they know better than the experts or have economic advisers that may not be giving good advice. Either scenario is not a good one. We don't need another President who believes he or she has good instincts and surrounds themselves with cronies who give bad advice.

Of course, the gas tax holiday most likely is political pandering. It is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes for the possibility of a few dollars a week during the summer. The sad part is that most likely it will work. Political pandering is just like negative campaigning, we say we don't like it, but it usually is effective. We have been electing the best negative campaigners and political panderers for about the last 25 years. If we need a to take a holiday from something, maybe we should try taking a holiday from voting for the same old people who give us the same old tactics. 

In a news conference yesterday, President Bush blamed Congress for the struggling economy. Of course, it wasn't too long ago that he wouldn't even acknowledge that there were problems. As usual with President Bush, he accepts no responsibility for anything that goes wrong. When things are going well, he is sure to take all the credit and give none to anybody else. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Bush saying what a great job Congress was doing when things were going well. If you're going to take credit for the good times, you should be willing to take responsibility for the bad times. I don't lay all the blame at the President's feet, but he should at least be willing to accept his share.

The acceptance of responsibility has become a societal problem. When things go wrong, many of us look for others to blame. The people blame the politicians, Democrats and Republicans blame each other, some blame the media, and others blame big business. Sometimes it seems like we are more focused on finding who's at fault, than we are on actually solving problems. The truth is that there is plenty of blame to go around and most of us are at fault. We need to quit playing the blame game and get focused on moving America in a new direction. Who knows, maybe if we start solving some problems we might find out that it doesn't matter who is to blame.