Coleman and Franken are neck and neck in the polls. But those of us who have high hopes are still waiting for Franken to pull ahead.
Palin is no longer looking like a great choice, is she?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
McCain Campaign is lying too frequently to keep up
Check out the "Count the Lies" link to the left for continued updates:
Washington Post Fact Checker blog: McCain "Seriously Misstated" Lebanon Vote. "McCain seriously misstated his vote concerning the marines in Lebanon. He said that when he went into Congress in 1983, he voted against deploying them in Beirut. The Marines went in Lebanon in 1982, before McCain came to Congress. The vote came up a year into their deployment, when the Marines had already suffered 54 casualties. What McCain voted against was a measure to invoke the War Powers Act and to authorize the deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon for an additional 18 months. The measure passed 270-161, with 26 other Republicans (including McCain) and 134 Democrats voting against it." [Washington Post Fact Checker blog, 9/26/08: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]
FactCheck.org: McCain Voted for $3 million to study the DNA of bears. "We’ve heard that one before. McCain's been playing it for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is -- but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding." [Fact Check.Org, 9/26/08]
Washington Post: McCain Repeats Lie That Obama Voted To Raise Taxes on Anyone Making More Than $42,000. "John McCain claimed that Obama voted in the Senate to raise taxes on anyone making more than $42,000 a year. This is misleading on several levels. The vote that McCain is talking about was a non-binding resolution on the budget that envisioned letting the Bush tax cuts to expire, as scheduled, in 2011. But these budget resolutions come up every year, and do not represent a vote for higher taxes in future years. In fact, Obama has said that he will continue the Bush tax cuts for middle and low-income taxpayers. He says that he will cut taxes for all but the wealthiest tax-payers." [Washington Post Fact Checker blog, 9/26/08: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]
AP: McCain Repeats Troop Funding Lie. MCCAIN: McCain said Obama voted to cut off money for the troops in Iraq. THE FACTS: Despite opposing the war, Obama has, with one exception, voted for Iraq troop financing. In 2007, he voted against a troop funding bill because it did not contain language calling for a troop withdrawal. The Illinois senator backed another bill that had such language - and money for the troops." [AP, 9/26/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRESIDENTIAL_DEBATE_FACTCHECK?SITE=ILEDW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]
ABC: McCain Falsely Invokes Eisenhower Letters. "Calling on President Eisenhower to deliver a lesson about accountability, Sen. John McCain invoked two letters authored by the 34th president the night before the Normandy invasion during Friday's presidential debate. One letter, McCain said, was authored in the event that the D-Day invasion was a success and the other, a resignation, in the event it was a failure. According to the National Archives, late on the afternoon of June 5, 1944, Eisenhower scribbled a note intended for release accepting responsibility for the decision to launch the invasion and taking full blame in the event the effort to create a beachhead on the Normandy coast failed. In the letter, Eisenhower takes responsibility but makes no mention of resignation." [ABC News, 9/26/08: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-mcca.html]
Washington Post Fact Checker blog: McCain "Seriously Misstated" Lebanon Vote. "McCain seriously misstated his vote concerning the marines in Lebanon. He said that when he went into Congress in 1983, he voted against deploying them in Beirut. The Marines went in Lebanon in 1982, before McCain came to Congress. The vote came up a year into their deployment, when the Marines had already suffered 54 casualties. What McCain voted against was a measure to invoke the War Powers Act and to authorize the deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon for an additional 18 months. The measure passed 270-161, with 26 other Republicans (including McCain) and 134 Democrats voting against it." [Washington Post Fact Checker blog, 9/26/08: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]
FactCheck.org: McCain Voted for $3 million to study the DNA of bears. "We’ve heard that one before. McCain's been playing it for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is -- but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding." [Fact Check.Org, 9/26/08]
Washington Post: McCain Repeats Lie That Obama Voted To Raise Taxes on Anyone Making More Than $42,000. "John McCain claimed that Obama voted in the Senate to raise taxes on anyone making more than $42,000 a year. This is misleading on several levels. The vote that McCain is talking about was a non-binding resolution on the budget that envisioned letting the Bush tax cuts to expire, as scheduled, in 2011. But these budget resolutions come up every year, and do not represent a vote for higher taxes in future years. In fact, Obama has said that he will continue the Bush tax cuts for middle and low-income taxpayers. He says that he will cut taxes for all but the wealthiest tax-payers." [Washington Post Fact Checker blog, 9/26/08: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]
AP: McCain Repeats Troop Funding Lie. MCCAIN: McCain said Obama voted to cut off money for the troops in Iraq. THE FACTS: Despite opposing the war, Obama has, with one exception, voted for Iraq troop financing. In 2007, he voted against a troop funding bill because it did not contain language calling for a troop withdrawal. The Illinois senator backed another bill that had such language - and money for the troops." [AP, 9/26/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRESIDENTIAL_DEBATE_FACTCHECK?SITE=ILEDW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]
ABC: McCain Falsely Invokes Eisenhower Letters. "Calling on President Eisenhower to deliver a lesson about accountability, Sen. John McCain invoked two letters authored by the 34th president the night before the Normandy invasion during Friday's presidential debate. One letter, McCain said, was authored in the event that the D-Day invasion was a success and the other, a resignation, in the event it was a failure. According to the National Archives, late on the afternoon of June 5, 1944, Eisenhower scribbled a note intended for release accepting responsibility for the decision to launch the invasion and taking full blame in the event the effort to create a beachhead on the Normandy coast failed. In the letter, Eisenhower takes responsibility but makes no mention of resignation." [ABC News, 9/26/08: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-mcca.html]
Friday, September 26, 2008
First Presidental Debate Won't Change Any Minds-
Both delivered as was expected of them- but hey, McCain showed up.
And did McCain really just admit that the US has tortured prisoners? He did declare that we would 'never again torture prisoners.' "AGAIN" Cheney will love it.
And did McCain really just admit that the US has tortured prisoners? He did declare that we would 'never again torture prisoners.' "AGAIN" Cheney will love it.
Tom Harkin, Russ Feingold, Barack Obama, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Walter Mondale, John Kerry, Al Gore, where are you?
Al Franken has been a progressive voice for the better part of the past decade. As such, he has benefited Democrats around the country with their various campaigns.
Al is in the fight for his own political life. If would seem fitting if the well-known and highly- regarded would take an afternoon to collectively work against the red machine in an all out blitz to rock Norm Coleman right out of his (elected) seat.
Harken, Feingold and Klobuchar, along with Mondale, have the least far to travel. Perhaps they can be thrown into the mix with a joint appearance by Obama and Biden. Al Gore is coming out on his own on October 4th to appear with and give his continued support to Franken.
Hillary Clinton could make a similar appearance as an Obama surrogate- she could promote Franken-and he in turn talk about the importance of an Obama win in November.
No one really cares about Kerry- but if he offers, don’t say no.
Al is in the fight for his own political life. If would seem fitting if the well-known and highly- regarded would take an afternoon to collectively work against the red machine in an all out blitz to rock Norm Coleman right out of his (elected) seat.
Harken, Feingold and Klobuchar, along with Mondale, have the least far to travel. Perhaps they can be thrown into the mix with a joint appearance by Obama and Biden. Al Gore is coming out on his own on October 4th to appear with and give his continued support to Franken.
Hillary Clinton could make a similar appearance as an Obama surrogate- she could promote Franken-and he in turn talk about the importance of an Obama win in November.
No one really cares about Kerry- but if he offers, don’t say no.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Al Franken (falsely) accused of lying about Coleman's lack of oversight in Iraq
The article linked here sites Senator Laugtenberg with specific information that indepentently verifies Franken's assessment of Coleman's performance.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
But wait, It worked with Gustav
If you are John McCain you need to be careful.
Your campaign keeps accusing your opponent of acting too much like the president- while not actually being the president. And when confronted with a natural disaster coinciding with your political party's convention you talked your party leadership into delaying and rearranging much of the festivities so that you would not be seen celebrating while the south drowns.
Never mind that there is little you or anyone else at Xcel Energy center could actually do about the hurricane anyway. They demonstrated that convincingly during Katrina three years ago and reminded us of that fact when ke struck outside the range of political cameras.
Now, after demonstrating a complete lack of knowlege on these matters, John McCain is going to mount a white horse and ride into Washington and save us from ourselves.
If he really cared about a non-political answer where was such a move last week? If this wasn't solely about political theatre why does he make such a proposal on national television rather than call the Barack Obama Camp himself?
It is now being widely reported that such a move is exactly what Barack Obama did in calling the McCain Camp this morning (8:30 AM Eastern) with a proposal for a joint statement from the candidates.
When did the Maverick turn nto such a show horse?
The scary pattern developing on the McCain side of things is an inability to multi-task and to set priorities. With regard to Hanna, and now this financial mess- that they have known about for a long time- it is not as if the Bush proposal hasn't been in the works for a long time (it is just that congress is getting very little time process it)- McCain keeps wanting to stop the game clock and take a time-out so that he can get it right.
His campaign surrogates are now spinning this as if he is the one who is reaching out to Obama.
Clever move. But the public needs to keep its eye on the ball. McCain made his name as an advocate for the same kind of deregulation that caused this mess. He consistantly votes in favor of business over the worker (Wall Street over Main Street).
The Gustav gambit worked (modestly). The Sarah Palin show added a well needed shiny object to keep people distracted frm real issues - so much so that Hurricane Ike and a lack-luster response from Government officials went almost unnoticed and the markets made their slide allowing the Bush administration to put forth their 'bail-out' plan for a rushed response from congress.
If the gamble works and McCain creates a new drama to distract people from the issues -including McCain's record on financial issues- it would be unfortunate.
Your campaign keeps accusing your opponent of acting too much like the president- while not actually being the president. And when confronted with a natural disaster coinciding with your political party's convention you talked your party leadership into delaying and rearranging much of the festivities so that you would not be seen celebrating while the south drowns.
Never mind that there is little you or anyone else at Xcel Energy center could actually do about the hurricane anyway. They demonstrated that convincingly during Katrina three years ago and reminded us of that fact when ke struck outside the range of political cameras.
Now, after demonstrating a complete lack of knowlege on these matters, John McCain is going to mount a white horse and ride into Washington and save us from ourselves.
If he really cared about a non-political answer where was such a move last week? If this wasn't solely about political theatre why does he make such a proposal on national television rather than call the Barack Obama Camp himself?
It is now being widely reported that such a move is exactly what Barack Obama did in calling the McCain Camp this morning (8:30 AM Eastern) with a proposal for a joint statement from the candidates.
When did the Maverick turn nto such a show horse?
The scary pattern developing on the McCain side of things is an inability to multi-task and to set priorities. With regard to Hanna, and now this financial mess- that they have known about for a long time- it is not as if the Bush proposal hasn't been in the works for a long time (it is just that congress is getting very little time process it)- McCain keeps wanting to stop the game clock and take a time-out so that he can get it right.
His campaign surrogates are now spinning this as if he is the one who is reaching out to Obama.
Clever move. But the public needs to keep its eye on the ball. McCain made his name as an advocate for the same kind of deregulation that caused this mess. He consistantly votes in favor of business over the worker (Wall Street over Main Street).
The Gustav gambit worked (modestly). The Sarah Palin show added a well needed shiny object to keep people distracted frm real issues - so much so that Hurricane Ike and a lack-luster response from Government officials went almost unnoticed and the markets made their slide allowing the Bush administration to put forth their 'bail-out' plan for a rushed response from congress.
If the gamble works and McCain creates a new drama to distract people from the issues -including McCain's record on financial issues- it would be unfortunate.
McCain Claims to buy American, But...
You would think the house thing would have helped him learn his lesson. Think again. McCain tells auto workers that he has proudly purchased american made cars throughout his life. At least 4 of his current personal fleet do not fit the bill.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Shell Oil opens new office in Iraq
For the first time since 1972 a western oil company has established a field office in Iraq.
"Mission Accomplished" If there was any doubt before, it is certainly clear now that this always was and is a war for oil. As American sons and daughters continue to die on foreign soil- let's be clear about the reason why.
"Mission Accomplished" If there was any doubt before, it is certainly clear now that this always was and is a war for oil. As American sons and daughters continue to die on foreign soil- let's be clear about the reason why.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
McCain Camp admits that Sarah Palin is "disadvantaged"
They should make the same case now for McCain's lack of Stamina- otherwise this is just plain sexist-right?
Friday, September 19, 2008
This Clip is more relevant each day.
I think this sums up the whole of what is said in a 45 minute testimony. Galloway is speaking directly to Senator Norm Coleman and his condemnation is directed both at our Nation's policies leading up to the Iraqi war and the policies involved in building up and sustaining our involvement- even against the the opinions and wishes of our allies and Norm personally (because of his vocal and continuous support of those errant policies).
Why is this imortant now?
Even as our country suffers the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression we continue to send money to our policitcal enemies for their oil- thus funding their actions against us. Further, we continue to be the sole financial contributor to the military efforts in Iraq at a rate that is almost exactly equivalent to the amounts the Iraqi's are putting into their bank accounts.
Obama has a great opportunity to rightly link our failed policy on Iraq to the overall falure of our economy. Closer to Home Al Franken can and should do the same thing.
Why is this imortant now?
Even as our country suffers the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression we continue to send money to our policitcal enemies for their oil- thus funding their actions against us. Further, we continue to be the sole financial contributor to the military efforts in Iraq at a rate that is almost exactly equivalent to the amounts the Iraqi's are putting into their bank accounts.
Obama has a great opportunity to rightly link our failed policy on Iraq to the overall falure of our economy. Closer to Home Al Franken can and should do the same thing.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Alaska among the smallest states in the union.
John McCain called Alaska 'one of the largest states in the Union' when he introduced Sarah Palin. But according to population Alaska ranks 47th out of 50 with North Dakota, Wyoming and Vermont falling behind. The populaton of Alaska is 683,478 and, while Sarah Palin claims to be a rejector of earmarks, the state ranks the highest in dollars per capita for earmarks from the Federal Government.
Try this: Would you want the Mayor of Baltimore Maryland to be the Vice President? The population there is 635,815. A bit smaller than the state of Alaska- but executive experience is what matters -according to the Republicans.
No, how about Austin Texas? At 690,252 Austin is actually bigger than Alaska.
In fact, in ascending order there are 15 more cities that have larger populations than all of Alaska. Columbus Ohio, San Francisco, Jacksonville Fl., Indianapolis, Indiana, Detriot, MI., San Jose, CA., Dallas TX, San Diego, San Antonio, Pheonix, AZ., Philidelphia PA, Houston TX, Chicago Ill. (at 2.85 million, more than 4 times the size of Alaska), Los Angeles and New York.
Try this: Would you want the Mayor of Baltimore Maryland to be the Vice President? The population there is 635,815. A bit smaller than the state of Alaska- but executive experience is what matters -according to the Republicans.
No, how about Austin Texas? At 690,252 Austin is actually bigger than Alaska.
In fact, in ascending order there are 15 more cities that have larger populations than all of Alaska. Columbus Ohio, San Francisco, Jacksonville Fl., Indianapolis, Indiana, Detriot, MI., San Jose, CA., Dallas TX, San Diego, San Antonio, Pheonix, AZ., Philidelphia PA, Houston TX, Chicago Ill. (at 2.85 million, more than 4 times the size of Alaska), Los Angeles and New York.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
What does Obama need to do to win this?
If Obama wants to win this election he needs to reclaim the “audacity of hope.”He needs immediately to stop worrying about what the opponent is doing and focus on his message.
At the same time his surrogates need to start taking apart every false claim that is levied against Obama.
As the standard bearer for the party Obama needs to bring his optimism and hope and message to every battleground state and stand side-by-side with every candidate in every race however tightly contested.
For my money, I would have him start in Minnesota with Al Franken and Tim Walz- throw in an appearance by Amy Klobuchar for good measure. Neighboring Tom Harkin from Iowa could come along- he is highly regarded in these parts.
Then swing through Colorado with Mark Udall and New Mexico with Bill Richardson and Tom Udall. While there is little if any chance of him winning Alaska I believe too he could serve Mark Begich well by going up there and standing with him for a rally.
Wisconsin would be a profitable stop, at least once.
Michigan deserves to see the top of the ticket again as well- probably twice.
Then Ohio and Pennsylvania.
He should swing through Indiana again for good measure, perhaps with Hillary.
He should make a visit to the pacific Northwest with a planned televised event in Washington.
Florida would benefit from a visit from both Clintons and Obama together and a permanent campout of Bill with frequent visits throughout the region.
VA is not gone yet - even though the Republicans think so. Standing alongside the popular Mark Warner would be a great move.
I could go on. But the main point is that Obama needs to give the media a story changer here so that they stop talking about lipstick and other nonsense.The Dems have every reason to believe that this is theirs to win at all levels. They need to start behaving like it is okay to be unified for the change we so desperately need.
At the same time his surrogates need to start taking apart every false claim that is levied against Obama.
As the standard bearer for the party Obama needs to bring his optimism and hope and message to every battleground state and stand side-by-side with every candidate in every race however tightly contested.
For my money, I would have him start in Minnesota with Al Franken and Tim Walz- throw in an appearance by Amy Klobuchar for good measure. Neighboring Tom Harkin from Iowa could come along- he is highly regarded in these parts.
Then swing through Colorado with Mark Udall and New Mexico with Bill Richardson and Tom Udall. While there is little if any chance of him winning Alaska I believe too he could serve Mark Begich well by going up there and standing with him for a rally.
Wisconsin would be a profitable stop, at least once.
Michigan deserves to see the top of the ticket again as well- probably twice.
Then Ohio and Pennsylvania.
He should swing through Indiana again for good measure, perhaps with Hillary.
He should make a visit to the pacific Northwest with a planned televised event in Washington.
Florida would benefit from a visit from both Clintons and Obama together and a permanent campout of Bill with frequent visits throughout the region.
VA is not gone yet - even though the Republicans think so. Standing alongside the popular Mark Warner would be a great move.
I could go on. But the main point is that Obama needs to give the media a story changer here so that they stop talking about lipstick and other nonsense.The Dems have every reason to believe that this is theirs to win at all levels. They need to start behaving like it is okay to be unified for the change we so desperately need.
This article from the Washington Post
gives us a great deal to be nervous about. The familiar tones of Arrogance, cronyism, close ties to oil money, surrounding herself with only people who agree with and defend her sound a lot like 'more of the same' and less like the promised 'reform.'
If is troubling to me that her only record of employment and involvement in the world outside her family are political positions where her record of 12 years is more spotty than we had been lead to believe.
I almost believe that she sees herself as a reformer and she reflects a tone that sounds too much like a mission. There seems to be an almost admirable optimism that allows her to jump forth with a 'yes I can' and 'yes I am' attitude about any challenge including: would would you be willing to seerve as Vice President and are you prepared in that role.
The problem is one we have seen before- A president gets elected based on drive and enthusiasm that is inflated compared to his actual experience- he surrounds himself with like-minded people who shelter him from anyone who disagrees (even to the extent of attacking voices of dissent) and moves forward with an intended mission without consideration of facts to the contrary.
This matches (too closely) the legacy of GW Bush and it matches the profile we have come to know of John McCain. Combine that with the well-honed political cynicism of the right-wing machine and it doesn't look at all like reform.
It would be overstated to say that this person scares me. It would not be overstated to say that this ticket scares me a great deal. McCain Palin would be wrong for America in ways we have not yet calculated.
It is clear that GW Bush pandered to the religious right in order to get elected- a move McCain was making that was not working among most fundamentalists (fool me once...). But what is not clear is whether Sarah Palin is also pandering or if (more likely) she is a true fundamentalist who believes she is part of "God's Plan" to Christianize the world.
If she is such a person- that would put her in an elite group of people who either does not care that GW Bush lied to get their support or believes the lies he told. Either way, such a person should make us nervous.
Our nation, and in fact our world are probably strong enough to survive a McCain presidency and we could probably survive too if Sarah Palin tragically had to step in to the role. After all, we (to date) have survived Bush/Cheney even as it spiralled into something far worse than anyone imagined.
But do we not deserve better? Do we not have an obligaton to do better for ourselves and for the world?
If is troubling to me that her only record of employment and involvement in the world outside her family are political positions where her record of 12 years is more spotty than we had been lead to believe.
I almost believe that she sees herself as a reformer and she reflects a tone that sounds too much like a mission. There seems to be an almost admirable optimism that allows her to jump forth with a 'yes I can' and 'yes I am' attitude about any challenge including: would would you be willing to seerve as Vice President and are you prepared in that role.
The problem is one we have seen before- A president gets elected based on drive and enthusiasm that is inflated compared to his actual experience- he surrounds himself with like-minded people who shelter him from anyone who disagrees (even to the extent of attacking voices of dissent) and moves forward with an intended mission without consideration of facts to the contrary.
This matches (too closely) the legacy of GW Bush and it matches the profile we have come to know of John McCain. Combine that with the well-honed political cynicism of the right-wing machine and it doesn't look at all like reform.
It would be overstated to say that this person scares me. It would not be overstated to say that this ticket scares me a great deal. McCain Palin would be wrong for America in ways we have not yet calculated.
It is clear that GW Bush pandered to the religious right in order to get elected- a move McCain was making that was not working among most fundamentalists (fool me once...). But what is not clear is whether Sarah Palin is also pandering or if (more likely) she is a true fundamentalist who believes she is part of "God's Plan" to Christianize the world.
If she is such a person- that would put her in an elite group of people who either does not care that GW Bush lied to get their support or believes the lies he told. Either way, such a person should make us nervous.
Our nation, and in fact our world are probably strong enough to survive a McCain presidency and we could probably survive too if Sarah Palin tragically had to step in to the role. After all, we (to date) have survived Bush/Cheney even as it spiralled into something far worse than anyone imagined.
But do we not deserve better? Do we not have an obligaton to do better for ourselves and for the world?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Yes, but will they give her a new speech?
I guess the American public really is stupid and we really do get the leaders we deserve.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Is it fair to talk about this?
I think so.
Gov. Sarah Palin billed the state of Alaska for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months as governor according to a story in the Washington Post. This allowance is intended to cover the governor's expenses when she is away from her office on state business. She also billed to take her children on official state trips and her husband also billed when he went along on these trips (presumably from Juneau, the state capital, to Wasilla, where the Palins live). The legality of this billing aside, a candidate who is strongly against government waste may have some explaining to do. If Palin went alone and spent the night in, say, Fairbanks to confer with the mayor, no questions would have been raised, but billing the taxpayers to stay in your own home probably qualifies as waste, even if it is legal (which is far from clear). Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) also spends a lot of time in his Los Angeles home, but he doesn't bill the state for it. Palin's position on "the bridge to nowhere" (initially for it but later against it) is also in the news. As the press begins digging deeper into Palin's past, more of this stuff may come out. This is the downside of putting a former unknown governor in the national spotlight. In contrast, Joe Biden has been around so long that all the dirt on him is already well known and not newsworthy.
Gov. Sarah Palin billed the state of Alaska for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months as governor according to a story in the Washington Post. This allowance is intended to cover the governor's expenses when she is away from her office on state business. She also billed to take her children on official state trips and her husband also billed when he went along on these trips (presumably from Juneau, the state capital, to Wasilla, where the Palins live). The legality of this billing aside, a candidate who is strongly against government waste may have some explaining to do. If Palin went alone and spent the night in, say, Fairbanks to confer with the mayor, no questions would have been raised, but billing the taxpayers to stay in your own home probably qualifies as waste, even if it is legal (which is far from clear). Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) also spends a lot of time in his Los Angeles home, but he doesn't bill the state for it. Palin's position on "the bridge to nowhere" (initially for it but later against it) is also in the news. As the press begins digging deeper into Palin's past, more of this stuff may come out. This is the downside of putting a former unknown governor in the national spotlight. In contrast, Joe Biden has been around so long that all the dirt on him is already well known and not newsworthy.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
Keith Olbermann on "McCain on Iraq"
This is from August 18th. If not for the conventions blocking out all of our media sensory organs this would be old news. But it deserves a reading.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Whacko Rightwing Church
Check out Sarah Palin in her own words- this link from Huffington Post says it all.
This YouTube video is pretty funny.
Skip the first minute and a half or so. I don't like to make connections to YouTube but I couldn't resist this one. And this is sexist.
A few thoughts about last night.
There was so much going on between the diatribe offered by Guilianni and the first national speech offered by their VP candidate. These are both worthy of their own posts.
The point that I want to make today has to do with the attitude of the Republicans. Call it the entitlement of the rich. They can have anything they want- damn the cost to the country of the environment. We heard nothing about how we plan to pay for the war in Iraq or the growing wealth in that country. We heard a crowd chanting "Drill baby Drill" as if such an action will solve all of our problems. No thoughtful response to envronmental concerns or the cost to our future.
Haven't we learned after 7 and a half year that "take it now, pay for it later" is no way to run a government?
The next administration will need to find a way to pay for the past 7.5 years. Do we really want to choose a ticket that wil compund that cost for a future generation?
I believe there are radical elements out there who will just love the sarcasm and cynicism that was offered last night- even outside of the convention hall. But I have to believe also that the voters will reject for what they are -scathing unfair laugh lines from a convention.
When wll the media move away from the discussion about whether or not they are being sexist and ask real questions about her background- including the fact (she is apparently proud of) that her husband is an oil man who works for British Petroleum?
The point that I want to make today has to do with the attitude of the Republicans. Call it the entitlement of the rich. They can have anything they want- damn the cost to the country of the environment. We heard nothing about how we plan to pay for the war in Iraq or the growing wealth in that country. We heard a crowd chanting "Drill baby Drill" as if such an action will solve all of our problems. No thoughtful response to envronmental concerns or the cost to our future.
Haven't we learned after 7 and a half year that "take it now, pay for it later" is no way to run a government?
The next administration will need to find a way to pay for the past 7.5 years. Do we really want to choose a ticket that wil compund that cost for a future generation?
I believe there are radical elements out there who will just love the sarcasm and cynicism that was offered last night- even outside of the convention hall. But I have to believe also that the voters will reject for what they are -scathing unfair laugh lines from a convention.
When wll the media move away from the discussion about whether or not they are being sexist and ask real questions about her background- including the fact (she is apparently proud of) that her husband is an oil man who works for British Petroleum?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
"This candidate is a showhorse and not a workhorse."
That has been the rap that Republicans have been placing on Obama- in various manifestations sinc ehe announced his candidacy.
However, Cindy Fiorina, a Republican, has appeared throughout the day on the different channels covering the convention with the claim that such a remark- when said about Sarah Palin is 'SEXIST.'
First, I haven't heard anyone say that about Sarah Palin.
Second, so what if they did.
Third, sexism does exist. and Sarah Palin has probably been a victim of it at some point in her life and even in this election so far. But let's not call everything sexism. And let's not jump on the rightwing bandwagon as they - newcomers to recognizing that such a thing exists- try to shelter their candidate's shortcomings by deflecting every valid criticism by accusations of sexism.
There are real questions to be answered about this candidate for Vice President as she prepares to prepares to hold the office under the oldest person ever to seek a first term for the highest office in the land.
Is she -following the standard McCain set for his own vetting process- ready top assume the duties of Commander-in -Chief on day one?
How does experience as a mayor- and then as a Governor of one of the least populated states (for less than one term -less than 2 years) qualify a person to be vice president?
At what point is she planning on learning what the Vice President does?
How can a person who was a rabid supporter of Pat Buchanan when he ran for president claim any hold on the center of the American voters?
I am sure there are more questions that need to be asked, but these should be enough to get people started.
However, Cindy Fiorina, a Republican, has appeared throughout the day on the different channels covering the convention with the claim that such a remark- when said about Sarah Palin is 'SEXIST.'
First, I haven't heard anyone say that about Sarah Palin.
Second, so what if they did.
Third, sexism does exist. and Sarah Palin has probably been a victim of it at some point in her life and even in this election so far. But let's not call everything sexism. And let's not jump on the rightwing bandwagon as they - newcomers to recognizing that such a thing exists- try to shelter their candidate's shortcomings by deflecting every valid criticism by accusations of sexism.
There are real questions to be answered about this candidate for Vice President as she prepares to prepares to hold the office under the oldest person ever to seek a first term for the highest office in the land.
Is she -following the standard McCain set for his own vetting process- ready top assume the duties of Commander-in -Chief on day one?
How does experience as a mayor- and then as a Governor of one of the least populated states (for less than one term -less than 2 years) qualify a person to be vice president?
At what point is she planning on learning what the Vice President does?
How can a person who was a rabid supporter of Pat Buchanan when he ran for president claim any hold on the center of the American voters?
I am sure there are more questions that need to be asked, but these should be enough to get people started.
Claim: "It is 'SEXIST' to talk about Sarah Palin's Daughter"
This is being asserted by Andrea Mitchell and Mika Brazynski of MSNBC. I will offer the caveat that I really do not care about Mika's opinion. She is a relative newcomer to political commentary. However, Andrea Mitchell is an old hand at this and has even served as White House Correspondent. As such her opinion carries weight and she should be much mor ecareful about checking her opinion against facts.
There are countless examples where the behavior of children has ben closely scrutinized during political campaign's. I would expect that if Sarah Palin had run for high elected office more than once she would know that.
If she had run for Mayor of a large city- some larger than her state- Governor in a more populous state or for the senate she might have been exposed to such scrutiny before.
If you doubt me- google it. But looking strictly at running for the highest office in the land (or a heart-beat away) one need look no further than Al Gore in 2000. His son Al was in an incident involving driving while intoxicated. For about 2 weeks or more we heard a constant barrage- from the hypocritical right about the elder Gore's fitness as a father, his ability to juggle job and family, his judgment and ability to control his own son- his 'family values.'
The issues- if you really care about the values the Repugnicans claim to care about- of fitness and abilities as a parent, ability to handle the rigors of the job, judgment and ability to manage her family are indeed issues to be explored.
Try it this way: What if Barrack Obama had a son who impregnated a teenage girl? Would it be enough to say- He has had "to grow up faster than we would have liked" and that the two intend to get married? I hardly think so.
Separate gender of the child from the equation and this issue is one that Repugnicans would not ignore. Frankly, given their track record on women's issues, They would attack an opponet if the situation were exactly reversed.
And their attack would be unapologetically sexist. They would would wonder out loud how this girl came to be pregnant. They would want to know more about this father. They would use surrogates to ask the most embarrassing and personal questions you can imagine all for the purpose of making the point- If she can't handle her family, how can we expect her to handle the government.
But since we are liberals. We tear our garments and beat ourselves up with self examination over issues of mercy and compassion.
Maybe, in reality, this all is and should be out of bounds. But let's say that without calling anyone sexist. If she cannot take the heat, she should get out of the boiler room.
There are countless examples where the behavior of children has ben closely scrutinized during political campaign's. I would expect that if Sarah Palin had run for high elected office more than once she would know that.
If she had run for Mayor of a large city- some larger than her state- Governor in a more populous state or for the senate she might have been exposed to such scrutiny before.
If you doubt me- google it. But looking strictly at running for the highest office in the land (or a heart-beat away) one need look no further than Al Gore in 2000. His son Al was in an incident involving driving while intoxicated. For about 2 weeks or more we heard a constant barrage- from the hypocritical right about the elder Gore's fitness as a father, his ability to juggle job and family, his judgment and ability to control his own son- his 'family values.'
The issues- if you really care about the values the Repugnicans claim to care about- of fitness and abilities as a parent, ability to handle the rigors of the job, judgment and ability to manage her family are indeed issues to be explored.
Try it this way: What if Barrack Obama had a son who impregnated a teenage girl? Would it be enough to say- He has had "to grow up faster than we would have liked" and that the two intend to get married? I hardly think so.
Separate gender of the child from the equation and this issue is one that Repugnicans would not ignore. Frankly, given their track record on women's issues, They would attack an opponet if the situation were exactly reversed.
And their attack would be unapologetically sexist. They would would wonder out loud how this girl came to be pregnant. They would want to know more about this father. They would use surrogates to ask the most embarrassing and personal questions you can imagine all for the purpose of making the point- If she can't handle her family, how can we expect her to handle the government.
But since we are liberals. We tear our garments and beat ourselves up with self examination over issues of mercy and compassion.
Maybe, in reality, this all is and should be out of bounds. But let's say that without calling anyone sexist. If she cannot take the heat, she should get out of the boiler room.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Why is it okay to talk about Sarah Palin's Daughter?
From my point of view- it is noble that Sarah Palin's Daughter (after finding herself a pregnant teenager) has chosen to keep the child instead of abort.
However, if this were a Democratic candidate we would be having a discussion about values, about responsibility for the behavior of children (remember Al Gore's son and the drunk driving incident) and about promiscuity (which is apparently just a problem when people on the left are the culprits). If she were a candidate from the left there would undoubtedly be questions about the age of the fatehr and the potential for illegal activity.
So without politicizing this: Is it fair to ask about the wisdom of a 17 year old getting married because she is pregnant (SHOT GUN WEDDING)? Afterall, these are the 'pro-family', 'pro-marriage' people.
Are we expecting that this daughter and the father of her child will move into the white house so that she can continue to be among the support structure of her family?
I do believe the daughter deserves her privacy. That being said, I think it is absolutely fair to call out this candidate on the inconsisencies between her own family life and the policies she supports as a conservative Republican.
Now, a far more interesting story, as far as I am concerned, involves her husband. Do we really need another oilman anywhere close to the next administration?
However, if this were a Democratic candidate we would be having a discussion about values, about responsibility for the behavior of children (remember Al Gore's son and the drunk driving incident) and about promiscuity (which is apparently just a problem when people on the left are the culprits). If she were a candidate from the left there would undoubtedly be questions about the age of the fatehr and the potential for illegal activity.
So without politicizing this: Is it fair to ask about the wisdom of a 17 year old getting married because she is pregnant (SHOT GUN WEDDING)? Afterall, these are the 'pro-family', 'pro-marriage' people.
Are we expecting that this daughter and the father of her child will move into the white house so that she can continue to be among the support structure of her family?
I do believe the daughter deserves her privacy. That being said, I think it is absolutely fair to call out this candidate on the inconsisencies between her own family life and the policies she supports as a conservative Republican.
Now, a far more interesting story, as far as I am concerned, involves her husband. Do we really need another oilman anywhere close to the next administration?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
