You’d think that with the election over, we’d be done with that.  But, no, there’s still at least one more:  “Sarah the Stupid.” Post-election, it’s time for Republican hand-wringing and finger-pointing and not a few are now leaking stories about how Stupid Sarah cost Republicans the election.  CNN’s Campbell Brown gives the best reason for understanding how that argument is bogus.

Whether the Republicans now ripping into her campaign ghost are correct or not, what Campbell Brown noted is true.  Those self-same, self-assured, supercilious Republicans are the ones who picked her. They then vehemently defended themselves against charges that she had not been vetted.

Watching the feeding frenzy might lead some to think “Sarah the Sap” or “Sarah the Sucker” are the more appropriate monikers.  Surely she must have known she was not qualified to be (Vice) President of the United States. She was on a roll in Alaska, and if she’d stayed there, she might have had time to mature before diving headfirst (headlong?) into the pool of national politics.

But just as Eva Peron once exhorted Argentinians not to cry for her, so, too, might Sarah justifiably tell Americans not to worry about her.  “I’m gunna be fine,” she might say.

You betcha.

Myth #1: Republicans are better for wealth-generation

When asked, “What are some common myths about the relationship between presidential elections and markets?”  He responded,

A lot of people say to me, “Wall Street is in bed with the Republican Party, and always roots for the Republicans.” But when you peel back the onion, and look at stock market performance, the market actually has been up more under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.

That sort of pure myth of saying, “All you need is a Republican in the White House, and the market will do well” — that just doesn’t hold water when you look into the research.  (Mark Jewell, “Meltdown 101: Vote could remove cloud over markets” (November 3, 2008) Associated Press. (Note: I edited the quote to remove the redundant and misplaced “has” preceding the words “actually has been up more….”)

Again, let me point this out: that was the Vice Chairman and Chief Investments Strategist of DWS Investments, the U.S. retail brand of Deutsche Bank’s global asset management division. It wasn’t some namby-pamby socialist.

Myth #2: Democrats are the party of the poor

Another myth is a perversion of the truth.  The myth says that the Democratic Party is the party of the poor and downtrodden.  It’s built on truth.  The Democratic Party is the party that works hardest to protect civil rights.  (In truth, neither party does a very good job of this.  The Democrats, however, work hardest at it.)  The average person doesn’t much notice the erosion of civil rights.  The loss of constitutional protections disproportionately affects the poor.

Thus the myths: Democrats come to be aligned in the public consciousness with the poor; Republicans with the rich.

The justification (as opposed to the genesis) for these myths is difficult to understand.  After all, as Froelich stated, “the market actually has been up more under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.” And Democrats don’t aim at protecting the poor and downtrodden.  Those who understand and adhere to the historical party platform — oh, for the days when party platforms were understood and meant something! — aim at a sustainable constitutionally-driven society.  It’s just that, for reasons already noted, the poor and downtrodden are the most visible beneficiaries of such aims.  Thus, it looks like the Democratic party is concerned only for the poor and downtrodden.

Myth #3: Democrats “spread the wealth” from “you” to the poor

This is why the Republicans can say that Democrats are concerned with “spreading the wealth” via a socialist society that coddles the poor.  It’s not true.  We take money and aggregate it to support others via the building of bridges, roads, funding scientific developments, underwriting businesses and through a myriad of other ways.  The question isn’t one of whether wealth is “spread.”  The question is one of how we decide how much each person pays into the pot, and what the pot is used to do.  The Republicans know this, and are hypocrites because they know that all taxation “spreads” a society’s wealth.

But here is where the Republican spinmeisters work to create new myths which will interact with those above.  If you believe Barack Obama, he plans to provide a tax cut to 95% of Americans.  Under his plan, the richest Americans will pay more in taxes.  Enter the mythmakers: “Barack Obama is a socialist (read: communist).  He wants to take your hard-earned money and give it to poor people.”  The corollary myth is that John McCain is the one who will actually cut your taxes, even though in reality it the richest who benefit from McCain’s plan.

The numbers say differently.  Most estimates say if you make between $66,354 and $111,645, your after-tax income will increase 0.7% under McCain.  If you make an income over $2.8 million, your after-tax income increases 4.4%.  (Want an exercise that will really open your eyes?  Do the math that converts the percentage increase to actual dollars.)  And, by the way, in my neck of the woods — Fresno — most people don’t make $66,000 or above.  On the other hand, in my neck of the woods, most people need the protection of their civil rights.  This is, after all, the fiefdom of Jerry Dyer and a generally racist police force.

Don’t vote for myths!

The acceptance of these myths accounts for the majority of my friends who support Sarah Palin — er, uh, oh yeah, I mean John McCain — for President. They don’t know these are myths; they accept them as true. And they all believe, somehow, that since they don’t conceive of themselves as poor and downtrodden that they must be in the other group: the rich.

So, I have to ask:  Are you voting for a myth?

If only they did.

I’m not even sure what to say about this one. Uh, enjoy?

The dangerously high level of the stupidity surplus was once again the lead story in The Owl that morning….

The reason for the crisis was clear: Prime Minister Redmond van de Poste and his ruling Commonsense Party had been discharging their duties with a reckless degree of responsibility that bordered on inspired sagacity. Instead of drifting from one crisis to the next and appeasing the nation with a steady stream of knee-jerk legislation and headline-grabbing but arguably pointless initiatives, they had been resolutely building a raft of considered long-term plans that concentrated on unity, fairness and tolerance. It was a state of affairs deplored by Mr. Alfredo Traficcone, leader of the opposition Prevailing Wind Party, who wanted to lead the nation back onto the safer grounds of uninformed stupidity.

The above is an excerpt from Chapter 1 of the novel Thursday Next, First Among Sequels by Jasper Fforde. I enjoy an “invigorating romp” (Associated Press) and an “impossibly winning book” (Newsday) as much as the next reader, love his use of language, his characters and his amazing creativity with the plot, but when I read the first couple of pages from this novel, it made me want to weep for our country. I couldn’t help comparing what I was reading to the hilarious hijinks which pass for informed planning and execution in the executive branch of our government.

Using the scenario above as a basis for thought, America is currently in a stupidity deficit of staggering proportions. In the past 8 years we have used up all the stupidity for my lifetime and most probably our children’s and grandchildren’s stupidity as well. Can you imagine a world where children won’t twirl around until they’re so dizzy they puke? Where teens on a Minneapolis January weekend won’t touch their tongues to street signs to see if they will really freeze onto the metal? The way our politicians are using up all the stupidity, these and the countless other small acts of personal stupidity will be history – perhaps even apocryphal anecdotes we tell our grandchildren about “Back when I was a child….”

I don’t need to point to specifics – anyone who has lived through the past 8 “W” years can compile a list. And who even wants a list? That would just be further stupidity – adding to our deficit!

The problem is even larger than this, however, when one considers our stupidity trade deficit. Countries around the world are amazed by our free-wheeling use of stupidity – as if the stuff is a renewable resource!

Now the Prevailing Wind Party – er, Republicans, have put Sarah Palin on the ticket as their choice for a Vice-Presidential candidate. I say it’s time for one awe-inspiring, blockbuster, gigantic “Mother-of-all Acts-of-Common-Sense” to put our stupidity deficit back into balance, and save our country, and possibly the world – VOTE OBAMA.

Think of all the dizzy kids, crazy teenagers, drunken rednecks in this country, and countless others around the world who need your help in order to have a future of guaranteed moments of stupidity, and do the right thing on November 4. Put stupidity back into the hands of the individual!

I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do… (Scott Conroy, “Palin Breaks With McCain On Gay Marriage Ban” (October 20, 2008) CBS News From The Road.)

If that’s not double-talk, I don’t know what is.  “I’m not going to be out there…telling them what they can’t do…but I’ll be fightin’ fer a constitutional amendment tellin’ ‘em what they can’t do!”

Actually, this isn’t double-talk.  It’s lyin’; it’s hypocrisy.  And it’s apparently thinkin’ yer too stupid to realize that she actually did it all in one sentence.  Plain and simple.

No big surprise, actually.  Isn’t that what the Republican candidates for President and Vice-President have so far shown they can do best?

You betcha.

In any event, once you’ve read this article, you’ll hopefully understand why both Obama and McCain call for a redistribution of wealth.  That’s what taxation is all about, after all.  The real question is, whose plan hurts the most Americans?  Whose plan helps fewer Americans?

When you consider the entire United States, the average income appears to be well below the $250,000 cut-off that Barack Obama has proposed.  A whopping ninety-eight percent of American households in 2005 made less than $250,000.  This means that under Barack Obama’s plan, approximately 98% of taxpayers will get a good-sized tax cut.  Under McCain’s plan, far fewer people benefit — and those who do benefit much less (except those already obscenely rich).  His much-vaunted cut on capital gains tax benefits almost no one making less than $200,000 per year.

As I read through the comments, I periodically noted people complaining about Obama’s comment to “Joe the Plumber” where he said he wanted to “redistribute the wealth.” A number of people I know have made the same amazing claim that this shows Obama is a socialist.

In this article, I discuss why that’s nonsense and how it demonstrates the ignorance of the electorate — not because they oppose Obama, but because they do not think.  (The condition of opposing Obama and the condition of not thinking are not necessarily related.)

To those people who believe the numbers show how Obama favors socialism:  Look closely at the numbers.  In the case of “What It Takes To Be Rich—Where You Live,” the chart says “top 20%” and “top 5%”.

What always amazes me is the people who fail to read these things accurately.  And if you look at history, you can’t help but wonder why business-minded people make the same mistake.  Looking at various studies of the issue over time, you’ll see that they range from showing that business does only slightly better under Democratic presidents all the way up to businesses do fantastically better under Democratic presidents.  (I think the one exception was the Carter presidency, and a number of factors including the Iranian revolution and its impact on — surprise! — oil, explain that.)

None of the studies show that businesses do better under Republican presidents.  So why the ignorance?  It’s the same thing that drives people to buy lottery tickets.  A few people do fantastically well under Republican presidents.  Apparently, everyone seems to believe that they will be among that group.

There is a difference, though: lotteries are fair.  And they don’t involve borrowing money so that rich people can get a tax cut.

As for the whole “redistribution of wealth” thing, that’s what tax plans do.  Money is taken from individuals in the form of taxes.  It is then spent on whatever programs the government implements and funds.  If that includes social programs which benefit people of lower incomes, then you can argue that it’s “redistributing the wealth” in a way that favors those with lower incomes.  If that includes wars and bail-outs, then you can argue that it’s “redistributing the wealth” in a way that favors the CEOs, the Keating 5, AIG, and the military-industrial complex.

For my choice, investing in social programs makes more sense. For one thing, it doesn’t just help lower income people. John McCain, for example, received $23,157 last year in Social Security benefits.  If I live long enough and we don’t have too many Republican presidents before then, I’ll probably collect them, as well.

Republican administrations also mean an increase in federal spending and federal debt. The Bush years are not unusual in that regard; they’re just extreme enough that even conservatives are finally realizing it.

Think about that when you’re worried about a “redistribution of wealth.”

But this post isn’t about Sarah the Stonewaller.  This post is about the man who had no problem telling us what he believed, had no problem answering questions.  Or did he?

Watch these two videos to see if you can figure it out. If you want more, visit “therealmccain.com.”

So…will the real John McCain, please stand up?  Do those of you who intend to vote for him know which one you’re actually trying to elect?

However, this SNL skit pretty much sums up the direction I was moving and was much, much funnier.  Both comedians nailed their impressions.  Which makes you want to both laugh and cry.  Enjoy.

UPDATE: For reasons I cannot discover, attempting to paste the proper video into this post fails. Until/unless I can resolve this, you’ll need to click here to view the SNL video of the Palin/Biden debate.