It is hard to see what the graph means just at a glance, but
here is what it says:

MSNBC was negative about McCain 73% of the times that it mentioned
McCain... in its NEWS, not its COMMENTARY.  In other words,
Keith Olberman's commentary show is not even included in this
research.  MSNBC was negative about Obama in 14% of its news
stories about Obama.

MSNBC was positive about McCain in 10% of its McCain stories,
and positive about Obama in 45% of its news stories.

How about FoxNews?  Even I, a fan of FoxNews, was surprised
at how balanced their numbers were.  They were negative on
McCain 40%, and negative on Obama 40%!  They were positive
on McCain 22%, and positive on Obama 25%.

Pew's commentary makes it sound as if FoxNews was "more
favorable to McCain and more negative on Obama than the
norm!"  That is a rather odd spin on being almost perfectly
balanced.  The "norm" in the media is a very strong bias
towards Obama, as the rest of the research shows.

This bias is the primary reason why we feel good about taking
a public, rather than just a private, stand for McCain.  With so
much unfairly against McCain, we feel that it does the country a
service to advocate for McCain and therefore shift the balance
just a tiny bit more in the direction of balance and fairness.

********************************
What About Our Social Liberties?
********************************

There is panic among social libertarian-learning folks
about Sarah Palin.  We are certainly to the left
of Sarah, socially, ourselves.  However, looking at her
and her record, we don't see any sort of streak of
authoritarianism in her.  She has not made any moves, that we
see, in Alaska, to restrict social liberties.  

In America, it is not the views of somebody that should be
feared; it is the propensity of that person to use force
and coercion to enforce those views.

It is Obama that we see using the law and force of govt to
enforce his views, whether it involves seizing private assets
to spread the wealth, control guns, or environmental views.
Even on abortion, Sarah Palin's view is that citizens should
vote state by state, whereas Obama's view is that the courts
need to decide the issue because American citizens and state
govts are not to be trusted.

Certainly, neither Wasilla specifically, nor Alaska as a whole,
is some weird socially restrictive place.  People seem quite
free and happy there, relatively speaking.

In Russia, where David's wife grew up, abortion is allowed for
the first two months, and prohibited thereafter, and abortion
is not a political issue there.  My personal opinion lies
in that range - something like 2 months where abortion
is legal.  We'd wish that the cutoff could be when the
baby's heart begins to beat, but that happens in 3-5 weeks,
which seems a little too early, realistically, to criminalize
an abortion.  

We do think that if pro-life social conservatives would publicly
relax their hard line stance on criminalization of abortion at
conception somewhat, they would cause a lot less panic.  We do
suspect that there are very few folks who really would vote to
criminalize abortion that early; it seems more like a political
boogeyman to scare people into knee-jerk voting for Democrats,
rather than thinking critically about both party's candidates.

That said, Obama's view, expressed by his 4 time opposition to
the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, is extremist and just
plain cold.  We don't even desire to add "in my opinion" to the
previous sentence.  Killing a live baby that has been born
in a failed abortion just seems indefensible to us.

We don't believe that Obama wants these babies to die, of course,
just like I don't believe that Obama wants coal workers to not
have jobs, or for half the country to have no electricity.  We
do think that he cares more about his radical agenda than those
tragedies, however.  What else are we to think?  He voted 4 times
against the Infant legislation, and he clearly stated and
explained his plan to bankrupt the American coal industry because
of his global warming beliefs.

The entire pro-Obama standpoint seems based on fantasy - a fantasy
that ignores Obama's record, and ignores Palin's record.  Palin's
actual record is not exactly one of social oppression.  If it
was, I would oppose her in a heartbeat.  Her record is of getting
a pipeline built after 30 years of other people trying, of
natural gas rather than oil, for much less govt money than
expected.  It is of cutting both taxes and spending.  

*******************
What About McCain?
*******************

We haven't said much in favor of McCain, but we think that it is
clear to most that McCain is a decent man without any major
flaws that we need to fear or get hysterical about.  I very
much like McCain's stance and RECORD on cutting spending as
well as taxes.  

I prefer his "competition and choice" view on education.  My
understanding on the education issue is that Democrats are
allied with the teacher's unions, which I believe is a bad
thing. Unions are healthy when formed to oppose oppressive
employers.  When govt workers unionize, that is a bad sign
about something. And McCain's non-partisanship is probably
more good than bad.  

I don't think that anybody is particularly smart when it
comes to foreign policy, but I prefer McCain, by a significant
margin, in that dept.  McCain also shows more of a pattern
of learning, admitting he was wrong, and not having a strong
ideological agenda, which involves a humility that I think is
good with foreign policy.  Because geopolitics is so complex,
arrogance mixes quite badly with it.

To any seniors who have received the false propaganda that McCain
will adversely affect soc sec or medicare, that isn't true,
by both his clear words and record.  I wish it were true,
actually, because I despise both programs, but McCain has
clearly stated that he won't reduce either, which is probably
necessary for him to get elected.

****************
Bush and McCain
****************

McCain differs from Bush economically in the critical area of
spending. Bush's low approval ratings come almost exclusively
from his excessive spending.  Liberals would hate Bush
regardless.  It is his spending, which angered Conservatives,
that has pushed his approval rating so low.

Obama's "90% voting with Bush" is misleading.  Nearly every
congressional vote is about something small, such as voting
to give a commendation to a person for serving their country.
The vast majority of congressional votes, oddly enough,
are virtually unanimous (about these little things).

The statistic also puzzles me.  Bush doesn't vote, so, on
the face of it, something seems strange.

Bush's other failing is that he strikes me as a relatively
weak communicator.  Bush's spending probably made the economic
crisis worse, but the real cause were loans to people who
shouldn't have qualified for them, and that was a liberal
idea.  Bush should have been stronger and more publicly vocal
in opposing bad loans, but he did not cause them.  

Bush lowered taxes and, most importantly, cut the capital
gains tax from 30% to 15%, which was terrific for all of us.
Bush also presided over 7 years of zero terrorist attacks on
American soil, a reality that would have seemed miraculous
if predicted in 2001.  I am neutral on the Iraq war, but
Bush, who is, among other things, Commander in Chief,
deserves credit for being a positive inspiration force in
our military.  Of course there are soldiers who don't like him,
but, on balance, his words and deeds have been quite good
for military morale.  This trait is mostly ignored these days,
but, throughout history, a man who could inspire the troops
was viewed as a good, or potentially great, leader.

Obama has spoken of our troops air raiding villages and killing
civilians.  Clearly, that is not a message that increases
troop morale.

Obama and Biden characterize lowering taxes on upper income
folks and businesses as GIVING those people money.  That belies
a highly authoritarian outlook on government.  It contains the
assumption that govt is the true owner of all property, so
that tax cuts mean that the govt is GIVING money to people.  
Stunning.  Absolutely stunning.

We can debate what tax rates should be, but when a politican
shows that they believe that the govt starts out by owning
all of your money, and then "gives" it to you in the form
of less-than-100% taxation, that is cause for alarm.  Such
a politician absolutely should not be voted for.

***************
In Conclusion
***************

I hope that, if you were already planning to vote for McCain,
this email gives you something to show your open-minded
friends and family.  Please pass these facts along to them, if
you would.

If you hadn't decided yet, as polls show 10% of people haven't,
I hope that this pulls you towards McCain.

If you plan to vote for Obama, please take a moment to
step outside of the sort of "sports team" mentality that
people have for their candidate, on both sides, and
re-think your decision.  You will have to live in this country
next year, and you will have to witness the plight of
your fellow citizens.  

I should add that McCain supporters should also step outside
of the "rooting for your guy" mentality long enough to
understand Obama voters, as it will make you more persuasive.

Here are potential reasons that people vote for Obama:

- They feel good about the guy.

- They believe that Bush was extremely bad and that McCain
  would be similar.  

- They have racial pride "I want to be able to tell my son
  that they can be president just like Obama," or racial
  guilt.

- They feel a sort of team mentality as a Democrat or Liberal,
  much like a Phillies or Rays fan might love their team and
  demonize the other team.  They may know somebody who is a
  Republican that they deeply disrespect or don't like, and
  they project that person onto John McCain and/or Sarah Palin.

- They are hysterically afraid that Sarah Palin will take
  away legal abortions and possibly reinstate the Inquisition,
  just like she has done in Alaska (that last part about
  Alaska is a joke, for all you guys who get your news
  exclusively from MSNBC).

- They feel that protecting the environment to any degree, no
  matter how small, is worth virtually any cost, even mass
  human suffering.

- They may be anti-religious, such as from a bad
  experience with being raised by religious parents who
  pushed the religion in an authoritarian way. While this
  bears no direct connection to McCain or Obama, the general
  Dem and GOP brands result in such a person leaning Democrat.
  To this person, I would reiterate that it is Obama who is by
  far the more authoritarian candidate, in my opinion.

- They feel a scarcity mentality towards life, and believe
  that, by somebody else being rich, it makes them have less.  
  They take comfort in other peoples' suffering and loss, and
  therefore buy into the class warfare and income redistribution
  philosophy.

- And often, it is a combination of the above.

Please pass this along to anybody you see fit to.  

All the best,
Mike Long and David Mills