I'm sick of it already

The election, that is.  And largely, I am sick of the distortions of the attack ads. And then the complicity of the media.

There is a difference in the general theme of the attack ads: Democrats attempt to assassinate an opponent's character and Independents and Republicans tend to focus on voting record.  Sure, because Dems have the luxury of having been in office, they have to attack character instead of record, but the level to which they stoop is just astounding. Is that a measure of their desperation, or is it a reflection of the vindictive and petty nature of their politicians. Don't go off and excuse the various PACs and Committees for the ads, these are wholly vetted by the DNC and the candidates themselves.

Ind/GOP politicians can focus on the reality of someone's voting record: Bob Golnik is running against Niki Tsongas with the simple tag line that "Niki Tsongas voted with Nancy Pelosi 98% of the time." Message: she does not represent your interests, she votes the official party line because she is a hack. Quite right. She was elected because she is the widow of Paul Tsongas, one-time Presidential wannabe and left of left Liberal in the classic Massachusetts paradigm.

Is that an attack ad? Dems would say "yes." I'd say it is a statement of fact -- a fact that has led to the imposition of some of the stupidest legislation ever to come out of Washington. A vote for Tsongas is also a vote for socialism.

Speaking of stupid, I keep hearing Liberals on the radio talking about how Obama cut taxes for the middle class. Another great piece of Liberal fiction.  The very nominal give aways are "cuts" only in the most literal sense of the word. They are neither permanent nor honest. The fact remains that Obama has sought to relieve the majority of Americans of any direct federal taxation whatsoever -- in order to lull people into thinking that he is cutting taxes. REALITY says otherwise: the TARP bailout, various stimulus binges and Obamacare are in fact the greatest taxation increases ever foisted on a nation. You see, they have to be paid for in the long run.

When your medical insurance rates go up -- and they will, along with cuts in service -- you are being taxed. As a result of this legislation you are experiencing the redistribution of money, goods and services in no less a manner than direct taxation. Already, we are seeing rates climbing as insurance companies consolidate and seek to cover the gap between revenues and obligations.  When illegal immigrants acquire full medical privileges (or any other benefits), you are being taxed for that action.

What is a tax? It is "a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on worker's income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions."

Another example? Obama's minions are imposing "cap and trade" through regulation ... if the EPA, once led by arch-psycho-liberal Carol Browning (who is now "Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy" and therefore in a position to continue to direct the EPA) mandates that certain coal-fired electricity plants are non-compliant, then they will face the need to close or install scrubbers to become compliant.   That these plants meet or exceed the standards of the EU and other climate-sensitive area is irrelevant. Obama wants these closed to force our move to "greener energy." 

This Obama-led diktat will result in a decrease of coal-fueled energy by approximately 7% in the next four years, driving energy prices higher (you are being taxed again) and forcing over $150 billion in new plant construction or technology upgrades. Care to guess who is going to pay for these? It will be passed directly onto the consumer. In this way it is a regressive tax, as it will hit the poorest hardest -- unless he also enacts handouts for energy.

But this does not even rise to the level of honest "tax-and-spend." No, Mr. Obama is a tax cutter. And the failure to vote on the extensive of the Bush tax-cuts until after the election is meant to confuse the voters: the Dems didn't by inaction let taxes rise, did they? I mean they haven't voted on it yet? Make no mistake about it, letting taxes rise through failure to extend or make permanent the rates and levels pre-existing is the same thing as raising taxes. But the media is not likely to dwell on that piece of sophistry,

As Democrats have said for years -- with reference to Ted Kennedy and cohort of tax cheats in the Administration and House -- you have to look at the person's voting record. Do you agree with what they stand for when it counts? For my taste, we should vote out every single member of the House and Senate.