Common sense has nothing to do with education or the lack of it. If I may blow off some steam, we have, in our America, more than we need of intellectual, well-educated fools on every side of the spectrum.Please, let's not in any way shape or form, get started in identifying ourselves with them, especially not when our national well-being is at stake.

We live in a world that would do very well without the  so-called "common sense" opinions of the likes of James Dobson-Focus on the Family, Pat Robertsons, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the rest. These people can  take pride in the sense that they, as the many infamous of history, have been able to mesmerize large numbers of followers.

How clever of John McCain to ally himself with the religious-right by picking Sarah Palin, someone who can truly present their extreme beliefs in a sabre-piercing but home-spun, folksy style of delivery. It has been proven that these clever Republican politicians know how to win elections but can't rule, except for their own base.

I,  like most of you are part of the ninety-five percent of Americans who represent, the middle, working class people of our great nation. All of us are going to suffer under another Republican administration. Let's get the message out across the land to reveal these people who are the merchants of status-quo. If we don't we'll be left with another four years with commmon sense eclipsed by hypocricy.

To distract myself from the inevitable pain that will be watching the Patriots beat the snot out of the Chiefs, I'm going to share some impressions on the ground of what is going on in Missouri and speculate as to why Obama is devoting resources to my state.

1. The McCaskill factor. She was with Obama early and strongly. She lost in 04 when she ran for governor and followed the D.C. establishment's plan for how to campaign in Missouri. And she lost to a total tool. When she ran for Senate in 06, she rejected the outsiders advice and spent an enormous amount of time and resources campaigning in out-state Missouri. She won by trimming Talent's margins in out-state. (The divide in MO is not urban vs. rural as much as KC/St.Louis/Columbia and "out-state," which represents the other half of the population and much of which manages to maintain certain "rural" attitudes despite being sizeable populations in cities full of colleges - see Springfield).

Sarah Palin claims to be pro-life. In this column, Walter Brasch shows that she isn't what she says she is.

The incumbent Repubican party running on change? Right!

OK Republicans don't get too excited about Palin just yet. It's too early to write off Barack Obama. There is no doubt in my mind that independent voters and Hillary Democrats will soon understand what this election is all about. It's about Republicans, John McCain and their relationship to the failed policies of George W. Bush. It's about the future of our country, and not an old Vietnam veteran who flew a plane into the ground. It's not about fighter pilots of the past. It's about the fight for America's future.

i read a pretty good OP ED in the Washington Post today by Charles Krauthammer. I Don't think I ever agreed with journalist Charles Krauthammer on much of anything. But I sure agree with much of his recent OP ED regarding Palin's Problem.

I'm in agreement with him when he writes, "Here were Republicans -- the party that controlled the White House for eight years and both houses of Congress for five -- wildly cheering the promise to take on Washington. I don't mean to be impolite, but who's controlled Washington this decade?  

Visit African American Political Pundit.com for the rest of the post.

http://africanamericanpoliticalpundit.co m/showDiary.do?diaryId=159

Inspired by this calitics analysis of races in California, here is an annotated list of the 7 Congressional races in Ohio in which Democrats appear to have a chance at taking seats currently held by Republicans.

For a politician that claims to be a forward-viewing "Country First" centrist-minded maverick bipartisan agent of change, the choice of Sarah Palin is curious.  Upon closer examination, Palin's views are reminiscent of right-wing radio talk show hosts and Fox News political pundits.  Her ideas are more aligned more with Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter than Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge.  Her record is that of a fundamentally religious conservative culture warrior hell bent on deconstructing FDR's New Deal.

I'm not questioning Sarah Palin, I just find it curious for John McCain to speak one way and act another.

A story was reported this week with very little fanfare from the media.  President Bush is planning on following recommendations to withdraw around 8000 troops from Iraq by January of 2009.  He would also send a small group of Marines to Afghanistan in November; No, not to add troops but to replace the ones leaving.

Folks, military commanders in Afghanistan are asking for `more' troops, not less, not the same -- more.  President Bush and John McCain are failing their jobs.  Bush and McCain have both promised to provide everything to the generals on the ground that they ask for - they've failed in that mission.

President BUSH said he will give the Generals ANYTHING they want - he's lying once again. John McCain being 100% behind President Bush is therefore ALSO to lying. With his current power over the Party, having a press conference demanding that Bush do something would do wonders - but he won't.

What isn't noticed as much during this news report are the words, "at least one Marine battalion will leave (Iraq) and not be replaced, as well as a few thousand support forces".   Don't you wonder how many `thousands' that number is?  I do.

Two weeks ago General Petraeus wanted to maintain current levels in Iraq - about 146,000, including 15 combat brigades and thousands of support forces through June.

There's no telling exactly how many troops we still have in Iraq because the news reports never match up.  We're never told the truth.  But if it's true that in January of 2007, before the `surge', we had 130,000 total troops there in Iraq, and if it's true that there's been an 80 percent drop in violence - why then do we continue to have, at the very least, 16,000 more troops there than what we had before the `surge'?

My point is, we are told 130,000 but they don't include the support troops and whatever terminology they use to describe the `extras'.

The McCain/Palin Campaign, indeed - the whole Republican Convention, made fun of Community Organizers as an important background to the Obama campaign. What this has led to is complaints from thousands of Community Organizers throughout the country. This new ad, for instance:

It has also prompted the creation of web sites like Community Organizers Strike Back. There we find quotes like: "The last thing we need is for Republican officials to mock us on television when we're trying to rebuild the neighborhoods they have destroyed."