My first response was to want to point out the misconceptions and errors, and argue the facts.

I don’t think that will do any good.  I’m pretty sure I couldn’t convince the authors to believe me.  If you are interested in knowing the truth about Obama’s tax policy, here are some links.  Check them out for yourself and make up your own mind.

• http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbusiness/small_biz_taxes_factcheck.smb/index.htm
• http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html
• http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23780.html
• http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

There’s another reason why I’m choosing not to argue right now.

We need to get out of politics as usual.  We need to “shake up Washington” (McCain).  We need “change we can believe in” (Obama).  That doesn’t mean we need to replace Republicans with Democrats or vice versa.  It means we need to get away from the politics of fear, and away from the oppositional model of politics.  As long as we’re pitted against each other, we’re going to have a hard time working together for the good of all.

You see, I don’t think there are people out there just itching to vote multiple times to swing the election.  And I think that if they are, they’ll have a hard time doing it.  The systems and laws we have in place actually work.  Salon’s Andrew Burmon recently interviewed Lori Minnite, an expert on voter fraud from Barnard College, and she says that “From 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty people were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people were found guilty of voting more than once. That’s 26 criminal voters — voters who vote twice, impersonate other people, vote without being a resident — the voters that Republicans warn about.”

So what’s all this about ACORN submitting fraudulent registrations?

It’s true.  ACORN even admitted to it. They knew about it before the registrations were submitted.  State or county laws often require organizations who are registering voters to turn in ALL off the registrations they collected, even if they know them to be fraudulent.  ACORN flagged the problem registrations before turning them in.  They were completely honest and upfront about it.

Did ACORN encourage people to submit fraudulent registrations? No.  Not as an organization, anyway.  The problem is greed and lack of work ethic.   According to ACORN, “there have been several times over the past ten months that our Las Vegas Quality Control program has identified a canvasser who appears to have knowingly submitted a fake or duplicate application in order to pad his or her hours.”  It’s about money, not politics.  It’s still not good, but it does not point to an Obama conspiracy to steal the election.

This is the truth.  There is no voter registration fraud problem.  People associated with the McCain-Palin campaign and with the Republican party are stirring up fear, just like they do with the rumors about Obama being a secret Muslim, or when they insist that Obama hangs out with terrorists.

And people believe these things.  And they get angry.  And when people get angry, bad things can happen.

Here’s where I got my information.  Please pass it along.  People need to know the truth.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/15/voter_suppression/index.html

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=76934

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/10/10289_the_acorn_controversy.html

I’ve actually met one.  I stopped at a convenience store for a drink, and the man behind the counter asked me if I’d watched the debate.  He said he just didn’t know whether it was even worth voting this year.  “They’re both just so radical!” he said.

That blew my mind.  I don’t see either candidate as being particularly radical, but in this man’s mind, they are.  He’s a man in the middle.  Both Democrats and Republicans are too radical.

He also said he likes Biden, and he seemed indifferent to Palin, although he thinks a Biden-Palin ticket might be interesting.  Somehow I don’t see that working out.

It does make me wonder, though, whether there is a better way.  Our current two-party system (which was not set up in the Constitution) pits adversaries against each other.  It inhibits true cooperation.  Even when politicians are “reaching across the aisle” it’s still about getting something for the party.  That’s where all those evil earmarks come from — they compromise and put these things in to get people to come together and vote on an important bill.

What if there were true cooperation in our government?  What would that look like?

As an educator, one that I’m interested in is Measure 58, which “prohibits teaching public school students in language other than English for more than two years.”  I actually became aware of this measure in July, and wrote about it here.

I’m thinking about it today because of a student who was just in my classroom.  She’s a second grader, and I happen to know that this is her third year here, so she’s already been immersed in the English-speaking environment of school for two years.  At our school, the kids get 30-45 minutes of specific ESL instruction daily.  The rest of the time, they’re in their regular classes.  And even in the ESL classroom, they’re most likely to be speaking English, because students from all different language backgrounds are instructed in groups together, and ESL staff don’t necessarily speak all of the different languages.

This girl, however, is still barely speaking English.  She managed to string 3 words together for me:  “I go here?”.  The rest of the time she was silent.  She also had a great deal of trouble double-clicking a mouse, although that’s not necessarily related.  She did manage to navigate the educational website the class was exploring today.  She’s definitely not English-proficient after two years of school, though.

That’s just anecdotal, of course, but it does demonstrate that different students have different needs.  Some students learn English quickly, and others do not.  Schools and teachers should be able to decide on an individual basis what a student needs, rather than being told by state law.

I’m not convinced that a change in presidential leadership will bring about real change.  A leader can cast a vision and inspire change, but real change comes from the actions of individuals and families on the ground.  If that’s true, why does it even matter who is elected President?

I’m tempted to ignore the whole thing, but there are reasons to care.  Here’s one:  national security.  That’s one function a national government is good for.  It’s harder (and possibly more dangerous) for local militias to protect the various parts of the country.

Therefore, I’m concerned about which candidate will do the best job of keeping us safe, and which will lead us in a direction that will keep my children safe in the future.

The Republican party and John McCain claim that they are best able to do this.  They also claim that we have good reason to be afraid!  If you haven’t seen the so-called 9/11 tribute that was played at the Republican National Convention (and on national TV), take a couple of minutes to watch it.  The terrorists are out to get us and have been for 20 years!  Be afraid!  But don’t be afraid, because we can protect you!

Protect us how?  By going to war against a sovereign nation under false pretenses? By sneaking into Pakistan, a nation that has nuclear weapons, to carry out military operations without the approval of the Pakistani government?  By killing civilians, including women and children, and then denying it?

These are the kind of actions that make me feel less safe.  I think these actions put our country and our children in greater danger.

I want a government that considers military solutions last, not first.  I want a government that sees the whole picture, not just a military picture.   Hey, kind of like this:

I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction… Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead…

–Barack Obama

This was a 5-4 decision.  According to Reuters, the majority consisted of the four liberal members of the court (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) plus swing voter Kennedy.  Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas (I’m wanting to throw up just from typing those names) voted against.

This vote, among others, clearly illustrates one thing that’s at stake in the presidential election:  the make-up of the Supreme Court.  What kind of justices would McCain and Obama be likely to appoint, and which would you prefer to have on the high court?  Would you like to continue having the right of habeas corpus, among other rights?

Think about it before you cast your vote.

Maddow also predicts that this would likely result in John McCain winning the general election, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.

She offers one solution, however:  “…based on my read of NBC’s delegate math, I think if the Clinton campaign won 100% of what they wanted on the Florida and Michigan dispute, Obama could still clinch the nomination — even according to the most pro-Clinton math — if 90 of the remaining 210-or-so undeclared superdelegates declared for Obama.”

Some of those 210 undeclared superdelegates are very likely in your state.  Why not give them a call?  Or an email?  Urge them to declare their votes — regardless of what they may be — so that we can get this resolved.  Here’s the current list at the New York Times.