Mark of the Maverick; Brava Sarah!; Vote for a third party candidate; Where do we go from here?

The mark of the Maverick

By choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has, once and for all, sold out to the religious right. And if you really look at their agenda, you can look forward to more of the same (possibly worse) — the antithesis of the change they are claiming they will bring.

Beware of wolves in mavericks' clothing!

Katie Ortlip

Ashland

Brava Sarah!

Great performance! Shades of 'The Witches of Salem,' an interlude from Oklahoma's 'I cain't say No,' Joan of Arc chomping on mooseburgers, some frames from 'Annie,' a little of 'Home on the Range' mixed with homey comments right out of Garrison Keillor — the incredible medley that attempts to define Sarah Palin is simply mind-boggling. I think I prefer Dick Cheney. He has shown himself to be thoroughly evil but he is consistent and rather predictable.

Sarah Palin's performance is the consummate act of a selfish, calculating, fanatic domineering power monger parading as a mother role model (ra-ra-ra). She is a pseudo reformer; she reforms when it meets her agenda or her religious fanaticism, but otherwise goes politics as usual. She is a time bomb that will hopefully be defused before it explodes and besmirches all.

Her selection is a sad commentary on the poor judgment (or far worse, the craven opportunistic cynicism) of John McCain. We owe it to the safety and the pride of our great country to keep McCain-Palin from the top job, and the U. S. of A. from becoming the laughing stock of the world.

Denise Wahl

Ashland

Vote for a third party candidate

I'm sure many Oregonians are turned off by the chronic Gordon Smith (R) vs. Jeff Merkley (D) media blitz for U.S. Senate for Oregon. Neither candidate offers much for voters.

In fact, the American public after 40 years hasn't learned anything since then-Alabama Governor George C. Wallace correctly stated back in 1968, "There is not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats."

Therefore, why vote for the lesser of two evils? It's simply Socialist Party A (Democrats) vs. Socialist Party B (Republicans). I wisely switched from Republican to the Constitution Party in July 2001. (See www.constitutionpartyoregon.net).

Fortunately, there is an alternative to both Smith and Merkley in the race for U.S. Senate in Oregon. Dave Brownlow is a third party alternative to the establishment status quo.

Also, this ignorance of "throwing one's vote away" by voting for a third party or third party candidate is moral and intellectual dishonesty! If the American public remains unwilling to break the establishment two-party stranglehold and not vote for principle over politics, then it rightly deserves the type of government it gets.

Readers of the Tidings can learn about Dave Brownlow at www.davebrownlow.com. This is simple, basic, honest, and straightforward.

"Why Second Party?" at this same site has an applicable commentary written by Dave Brownlow titled, "Confessions of a Former Republicroid Zombie," which is well worth the attention of free-thinking voters.

As vice chairman of the Constitution Party for Jackson County, I approve this message. This, on behalf of our constitutional republic (no we aren't a democracy!), restoration of the founders' intent and the Judeo-Christian biblical foundation this nation was originally established upon. The Bible states: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." — Proverbs 29:2.

James A. Farmer

Ashland

Which way to go?

We Americans are being offered two choices during this presidential election: Look ahead to new directions or retreat to our (imaginary) past.

If we choose to look ahead, seeking new ideas with a goal of changing our world for the better, we must first face our innate fear of change. All we know is where we've been. Going forward means entering an unknown realm — one offering all possibilities. For some of us, that's where life is — where the thrill of discovery lies ahead. But only if we are willing to drop our preconceptions and old habits of thought in order to open to new truths.

If Sarah Palin's message draws us, it's because the bigger part of ourselves yearns to slip back into the broken-down shoes we've walked this earth in thus far. We may have worn holes in their soles, but at least they're recognizable and comfortable to us. But they won't carry us over the rocky terrain we have ahead, as Americans who face the desperate problems which we, ourselves, have created.

In my heart, I know the old worn truisms are long past offering us any hope of creating a loving, nurturing world of beauty and abundance to pass on to future generations. So, do we advance into a brighter future? Or do we retreat back to our old comfort zones, refusing as we back-pedal to acknowledge the global economic, social, political and ecological disasters our old ways have fostered?

Valerie Muroki

Ashland