Sick to death of politics already? It's just getting started.

If Obama (or McCain for that matter) were not natural born citizens, the Enquirer would have already made it known. Strangely, someone tried to use that constitutional prerequisite to nullify Barry Goldwater's candidacy. He was born in Arizona before it was a state.

I was just commenting to my mother at church today that this has been the longest, most drawn out election "season" I've ever witnessed. Sick of it? You bet, and we haven't even had the conventions yet. My sister also stated she was sick of the Obama/Biden story by yesterday morning. I told her to hang on, because we've barely gotten into the first act of the Barry and Joe show...

Catpaw:  Yes, it's just getting started, and that's what scares me.  We still have to go through September, October, part of November and the rest of August.  May the Lord help us.  Animal Planet is the only thing worth watching.  Or the world's funniest videos, or the world's funniest pets.  Forget about late-night "humor"/talk shows.  They've long since had any humor to offer. 

I believe the Enquirer needs to get into this one -- and fast.  It really has not been proven to my own satisfaction that B.O. has the birth requirements to be President.  Citizen, maybe.  President, no.  Figuratively speaking, I'm from Missouri. 

Rick:  Longest, most drawn-out election season ever in the history of our nation, I do believe.  I think I shall go stark, raving mad if I watch much more of it.  What's left?  Read the comment to Catpaw. 

The "Barry & Joe" show (or, as I would prefer, the B.O. & Joe Show) may have some interesting moments.  It should be fun watching Joe attempting to hold his tongue.  Probably need to get somebody else to do it for him.  B.O. can fill in with a few uhhhh's and ahhhhh's and fumble/stumbling; he's good at that.  But please, I only want snippets, I don't want to watch the entire morbid circus. 

You know I'm with you Alicen, wishing for a merciful end to all the madness.

Sick to death of politics? Then why make your last statement a political jab that has already been settled weeks ago? Obama's birth certificate has been produced and vetted already. Geesh, and your side complained when liberals went on for months about whether or not McCain qualified as a natural born citizen. Maybe politics wouldn't be so annoying if both sides didn't keep using the same flawed tactics.

Because the poster is sick to death of Democratic candidates who fight back against smear tactics.

If I can find a single, most encompassing way to describe political campaigns lately, it is this:

The candidates are being presented and judged not by their fitness for office, but by whether they could win an Oscar or an Emmy.

I was watching a few cable networks after Barack Obama announced his VP running mate.  None of the commentators said much about the issues; all commentary dealt with the candidates' image, their poise, how often they strayed from the speech writers' scripts, and the quality of their public performance and speaking skills.

It made me feel as if we weren't selecting a president, but choosing a lead actor in a big budget movie.

Been that way since Reagan, at least. 

Schwaine:  I'm sorry that bit of information didn't get through.  There is so much information to process that it's possible -- no, probable -- that some of it will slip through.  I am happy to know we won't have to change the Constitution to legalize a possible Presidency of B.O. after the fact.  I guess what I was reading today was just old news revamped.  It's possible.  I'll be the first to admit it as soon as I'm satisfied it's true.  And I never doubted the citizenship of McCain.  As I understand it, both of his parents, who were married to each other when McCain were born, were citizens of the United States of America.

Randomfactor:  Because the poster is sick to death of any candidates who have to fight back against smear tactics by anyone.  Anybody with eyes and ears can see and hear the smears and jeers and jabs and stabs that emanate from both crowds.  And just FYI, I'm not planning on watching either circus -- Democrats or Republicans.  All I want to see or hear are snippets.  I truly am sick of this entire fiasco.  I'm keeping my finger on the mute and previous channel buttons, ready to flip either off.  If I'm able, I'll be voting in November; that's all that really counts. 

ApolloDawn:  Good observation.  At least when we had Ronald Reagan (those of us who can remember back that far), we knew exactly what we were getting:  an actor.  As far as I'm concerned, that is what he remained.  Oh, I know there's a lot of praise being slung around about him today.  But (1) he's not with us anymore; and (2) we don't have to watch the serious displays of what I thought even then to be early signs of dementia.  Snoozing off at meetings -- things like that.  And the "Aw, shucks" attitude in my opinion was a cover-up for a lot of shortcomings.  Nancy did a good job of covering up for him, too, in my opinion. 

Still, he was a better actor than any I see around today onstage. 

So, in your posting at the top of this page, you print one of the smears circulating about Obama and suggest it might be true.   There aren't any you can cite unfairly lambasting McCain?   You can edit the post to remove the birth certificate PS, and I'll be happy to delete my objections to it.

Randomfactor:  See my comment to ApolloDawn. 

Sam:  A merciful end to all the madness is precisely what's needed.  The end will be merciful to almost all of us.  You said in so few words exactly what I meant.

Randomfactor:  Your comment at 5:18 p.m. will remain.  Others will judge, can judge, your comment and its content.  I am not changing one word I said in my original post.  If I am behind the news curve, then so be it.  You can read my comment to Schwaine at 5:04 (which you apparently missed).   Incidentally, I don't need your permission to delete your entire comment merely to delete part of it.  Why don't you, in view of my 5:04 p.m. comment, delete your own reference to what you find so objectionable about my post?  Don't like that idea, RF? 

I don't need an editor, either.  I'll edit myself, thank you very much. 

Note to ApolloDawn:  When I said that "he [Reagan] was a better actor than any I see around today," what I meant by that was today's political stage, not Broadway or off-Broadway, either.  Wanted to clarify that. 

Hee hee, no need to clarify; Ronald Reagan wasn't my idea of a great actor, but I resist judging what other people consider to be talented, beautiful, or art.

ApolloDawn:  Reagan was certainly not one of my favorite actors, but at any rate I could tolerate him.  Funny, but I remember him more as an actor than as a President.  Do you suppose he was just acting President?  (Now I suppose I'll get all the Reagan-lovers (Presidential and actor) on my case because I didn't think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Sorry, Wrong Number.  Oh, that was the name of a movie. In which RR did not play.  Was that Ray Milland?

As to talented actors?  Uhhhh.  Let me think.  Sidney Greenstreet?  Olivia DeHavilland?  Kirk Douglas?  Roy Rogers?

Why don't you, in view of my 5:04 p.m. comment, delete your own reference to what you find so objectionable about my post? 

Because you left the objectionable part intact.   No, you don't need my permission to remove my post.  Several cowards elsewhere on the blog do it regularly.

Just to get you up to date on the birth certificate issue, here's a list of posts on the topic:

www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa. html

www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/16/politics/horsera ce/entry4355527.shtml

latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/myste ry-solved.html

Schwaine:  thanks. I'll look those up.  I guess I am from Missouri. 

RF:  I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.  Yet. 

Schwaine:  Just to let you know I ran those links off but haven't had a chance to read them yet.  One was a blog, and as much as I adore this particular blog, I can't rely on them as the most reliable sources of information.  I could tell you I was a born redhead.  You'd believe that, right?  Nope, and I couldn't blame you.  I will read the sources.  Been rather on the go today. 

The first link is the primary one. Those are the people who personally inspected the birth certificate and received permission to post their digital photos of it. The other two links are staff blogs for news agencies reporting on the inspection. You can trust them as much as you would trust a TBC staff blog here.

Schwaine:  I really must be from Missouri.  I have written to a person knowledgeable about Constitutional law regarding this; as soon as an acceptable answer is received, I will be happy to admit that we won't need a non-B.O. constitutional lawyer to draft an Amendment to the Constitution.  I don't trust all news agencies, and I certainly don't put my trust in blogs, staff blogs or no.  After all, I'm writing this blog, and you don't simply automatically believe me.  Nor am I asking you to believe me.  Most blogs in this particular forum are in the nature of opinion; it doesn't make them incorrect; it simply makes most of them opinions of ordinary people.  Okay, some extraordinary people, but mostly ordinary people.  (Missouri, remember?)  But thanks for the info. 

Incidentally, one of the items you linked and that I printed was five pages; the other was three.  Somehow the five-pager vanished from this house; I shall run it again.  (The dog ate my homework.)  Also incidentally, the one blog you linked and that I did not print appeared to be a blog from another newspaper. 

It's up to you to place a level of trust into sources, but just keep in mind this thought: would you trust that source if it was a positive piece about your candidate instead? That sort of thinking tends to keep one honest with respect to one's biases. The urge to dismiss out-of-hand all positive articles about "them" is very strong in the human psyche and you have to temper it with such thinking.

Schwaine:  Thanks.  I'm purposely not mentioning my source, but it's about as bright and articulate as a source can get.  Some people may not like this source, and it grates on my own nerves at times.  That, of course, does not make it incredible.  The Washington Post, for instance, isn't exactly known among some for its unbiased opinions.  However, I've used quotes from it in letters to the editor of my paper, and the editor has not dismissed them out of hand -- maybe in view of the fact that the paper itself runs reports frequently from the Post. 

I've noticed that some bloggers reprint entire news stories from newspapers, and that is something I've avoided like the plague.  It seems to me that if there's anybody who wants to read a newspaper story, they'll choose their own.  My own satisfaction in blogging is that I can use my First Amendment right and speak (write) my thoughts about a matter, and people can either agree or disagree; it has never occurred to me that I absolutely must provide a link for every opinion I may hold. Clearly, not every link will satisfy every reader. 

Opinions are the result of reading, listening and thinking; what resonates with the reader-listener-thinker may not resonate with every other such persons.  That's what makes us such fabulously interesting creatures. 

Incidentally, the source I mentioned has had computer system glitches that have made an immediate reply to me impossible for the moment.  However, I shall return as soon as possible with an answer that will satisfy me.  I will not hesitate to state that my disbelief has been rendered baseless. 

I believe you and I are making it abundantly clear to other readers that bloggers on this site can and may disagree without being offensive, quarrelsome and unpleasant.  I find that refreshing.  Thanks again.