The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20080918140609/http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
IMPEACH
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Oh snap!
"Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president that he’ll take on, and I quote, ‘the old boys network in Washington.’ Now I’m not making this up. This is somebody who’s been in Congress for twenty-six years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna’ to take on the old boys network. The old boys network? In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting. Come, on!"
Late Wednesday night, news made its way from the other side of the Atlantic that John McCain, in an interview with a Spanish outlet, had made a series of bizarre responses to a question regarding that country's prime minister.
"Would you be willing to meet with the head of our government, Mr. Zapatero?" the questioner asked, in an exchange now being reported by several Spanish outlets.
McCain proceeded to launch into what appeared to be a boilerplate declaration about Mexico and Latin America -- but not Spain -- pressing the need to stand up to world leaders who want to harm America.
McCain had no idea what was going on in the interview. She specifically told him, twice, that she was talking about Spain and the Spanish president. She's a Spanish reporter with one of the largest, if not the largest, newspaper in Spain, El Pais. I know this paper, McCain certainly knows this paper (and it's not like McCain's staff didn't tell him who he had the exclusive interview with for ten minutes). She made it clear she was asking about her own country and her own president and Mccain had no clue what she was talking about.
Either McCain had no idea what the woman was talking about when she said "Spain," and then said "the President of Spain," repeatedly, or McCain intentionally snubbed the country of Spain tonight for no apparent reason, which is very hard to believe, especially given his earlier interview in which he said he was fine meeting Zapatero. The interview is absolutely bizarre, especially in that it sounds like McCain wasn't even lucid, it sounds like he simply doesn't have complete control over his faculties anymore. And judging by the fact that just a few months ago McCain was fine with Zapatero, it sounds like McCain simply wasn't quite all there any more during the interview. He got horribly confused and didn't know what was going on.
I should apologise for the flippancy of this post. Perhaps age is finally catching up to the GOP's nominee for president. If that's the case I shouldn't make fun of it.
In the Spanish Press. Via Talking Points Memo. Seems that the formerly honorable Senator McCain was asked about Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero.
Seems that McCain didn't know who he was:
In Spain, there seem to be two lines of thinking. The great majority appear to think the McCain was simply confused and didn't know who Zapatero was -- something you might bone up on if you were about to do an interview with the Spanish press. The assumption seems to be that since he'd already been asked about Castro and Chavez that McCain assumed Zapatero must be some other Latin American bad guy. A small minority though think that McCain is simply committed to an anti-Spanish foreign policy since he's still angry about Spain pulling it's troops out of Iraq. Finally, a few of those who lean toward the first view speculate that McCain may have confused Zapatero with the Zapatista rebel group in Mexico.
In an interview with me, Melissa Hart said that while the Chinese were NOT, in fact, drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, "they may already be now."
Well I have a response from the Altmire campaign:
Every independent expert now recognizes that the China drilling off the coast of Cuba myth is just that, a myth. Most of those who were using that Republican talking point, including Vice President Dick Cheney and House Republican Leader John Boehner, have apologized or at least admitted their error. That's the problem with simply recycling the National Republican Congressional Committee’s talking points without checking your facts.
It is the central charge against the Bush White House, that the administration lied its way into a war in Iraq.
For years, left-wing pundits and groups like MoveOn.org beat the drums with this accusation. The White House response: We were just acting on the same intelligence everyone else had -- evidence, which turned out to be faulty, that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction.
Now comes Dick Armey, once House Majority Leader, who described a classified one-on-one briefing in the vice president's hideaway office in the U.S. Capitol where he says Vice President Dick Cheney went beyond that into outright deception.
And what Armey said Cheney said:
Iraq's "ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear," had been "substantially refined since the first Gulf War," and would soon result in "packages that could be moved even by ground personnel....We now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as Al Qaeda."
Of course we all know that Dick Armey's a terrorist loving, committed to defeat, tax and spend democrat, don't we?
Please join us for a happy hour TODAY Tuesday, September 16th to celebrate the creation of P2PAC.
P2PAC is a political action committee that supports candidates whose districts touch the City of Pittsburgh and whose agendas are consistent with its mission: good government, sustainable development, and social equity. P2PAC endorses candidates who meet these criteria and provides resources to advance their leadership. We see leadership as the primary vehicle for positive change in service of our mission.
We will be requesting a $5 donation at the door; all funds raised go straight to the PAC.
This time it's Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, who describes himself thusly:
I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.
Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.
But not any more:
McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains -- his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though.
And:
His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.
When you've lost your allies at the Washington Post, you're in deep doo-doo.
You know, that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it is — people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.
A statement from Senator Barack Obama on the Situation in Financial Markets:
"This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street.
"The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.
"The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store. Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.
"I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years - one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise, and one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.
"Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up - from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.
"This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have consistently called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market - rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I've called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together. That is the change I am calling for in this campaign, and that is the change I will bring as President," said Senator Barack Obama.
Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin spent Saturday scrambling to explain details of her only trip outside North America in the wake of a report that that trip did not include travel into Iraq, as the McCain-Palin campaign had initially claimed.
Palin made an official visit to see Alaskan troops in Kuwait in July of 2007. There, she made a stop at a border crossing with Iraq on July 25, according to the Boston Globe, but did not go further into the country. "Sarah Palin's visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate's campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America," the Globe's Bryan Bender wrote, adding, later in his story: "[C]ampaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border."
Sarah Palin's visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate's campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America.
Following her selection last month as John McCain's running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin's foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone.
But in response to queries about the details of her trip, campaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border when she visited Khabari Alawazem Crossing, also known as "K-Crossing," on July 25, 2007.
Is there anything the McCain canp won't lie about?
We already know they've been fudging the numbers of the rallies. Bloomberg has more. Seems that the so called "Straight talk express" is claiming confirmation of data from sources that don't confirm data. Here's one example:
Senator John McCain has drawn some of the biggest crowds of his presidential campaign since adding Alaska GovernorSarah Palin to his ticket on Aug. 29. Now officials say they can't substantiate the figures McCain's aides are claiming.
McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal.
Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events.
And another:
The McCain campaign said 10,000 people showed up at the Consol Energy Arena in Washington, Pennsylvania, home of the Washington Wild Things baseball team.
The campaign attributed that estimate, and several that followed, to U.S. Secret Service figures, based on the number of people who passed through magnetometers.
"We didn't provide any numbers to the campaign,'' said Malcolm Wiley, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service. Wiley said he would not "confirm or dispute'' the numbers the McCain campaign has given to reporters.
I'll ask it again, is there anything these republicans won't lie about?
It's very sad to watch a guy who used to have some amount of integrity give it all up, shred it all, just for his own ambition.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the formerly honorable John McCain
Red State, a real live conservative website posted this last February:
Sean Hannity has consistently said that he likes John McCain personally and respects his service to our country. I believe him. He disagrees with McCain on issues. That’s fine, so do I. But why is he promoting the Pittsburgh based “Quinn and Rose In The Morning” radio show? Is Sean unaware that Quinn used his show to spread rumors accusing McCain of being a traitor?
Reminder: This is NOT me writing - this is from "Samsara" at Red State. It continues:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2008, Jim Quinn read on the air an unsubstantiated internet article alleging that POW John McCain "accommodated" his captors and was rewarded with an apartment in Hanoi. Quinn then directed his listeners to go online and read the part of the article he said was too "inflammatory" for the air. The article reported that McCain was provided prostitutes at this hotel room. Quinn then gave out the web address of this trash. He urged his listeners to read this article because the author was a source he respected.
Unfortunately, the article is behind a subscription wall. Fortunately there are enough clues in the piece at Red State to find the article elsewhere.
The number of fellow senators who think John McCain is psychologically unstable is large. Some will admit it publicly, like Thad Cochran who says, "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine."
Others relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum or Jim Inhofe. "The man is unhinged," one senator told me. "He is frighteningly unfit to be commander-in-chief."
Jim Quinn read that on the air.
Here's more:
McCain claims he refused [to be released early], because he demanded all American POWs captured before him be released as well. He thus remained a prisoner when he could have gone home, and was subjected to constant brutal beatings and torture for years: that is the source of the "war-hero" saga making McCain a greater war-hero than any other American POW.
Yet the offer of release would had to have been approved by the GRU overseers of the North Vietnamese – and T does not recall any such offer being made. T admits, however, that this took place before McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by the POWs. T had only direct knowledge of what happened at Hoa Loa, and not the other prisons, where T's father was in charge.
McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators' notes and reports regarding John McCain.
According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.
Again, Jim Quinn read this disgusting story on the air. This is what the republicans were saying about John McCain only 7 months ago. And Jim Quinn read that on the air.
Nevada Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki said on stage that 10,000 people were in the crowd, but parks officials said the pavilion held only 3,500 people.
I know the Republicans are good at fudging numbers (votes in Florida, barrels of oil in ANWR, budgets everywhere) but how, exactly, do you fit 10,000 people into a space that holds only 3,500?
And how stupid do they think the rest of us are? And how stupid are they to think that no one would notice?
In this week's column, Jack Kelly dives into the whole (and increasingly important, doncha know) "lipstick on a pig" controversy.
The thing you have to remember, here, is that this is what Jack used his column space for: Lipstick on a pig. Not Governor Palin's ballooning of the Alaska budget ("fiscal conservative" anyone??) or her continued lying (yes, lying) about the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere." Or the jet that was sold ("for a profit" spake McCain) on ebay - except it wasn't.
No. We get the "lipstick on a pig" thing. And Jack isn't even spinning it very well. Take a look:
Speaking in Lebanon, Va., the day before, Mr. Obama said Sen. John McCain may claim he'll change Washington, but he's really just like President Bush.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
The AP's Nedra Pickler said the remark drew "shouts and raucous applause" from his audience, whose members were "clearly drawing a connection" to the joke Sarah Palin told in her acceptance speech, that the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick. The McCain campaign demanded he apologize for the remark and rushed out a television ad criticizing him for making it.
Mr. Obama said Wednesday he meant no such thing. His profession of innocence would have been more persuasive if he'd attempted to disabuse his audience Tuesday of the notion he was referring to Ms. Palin, and if an Obama surrogate hadn't used remarkably similar language that day in referring to her.
First off, part his reporting is based on what Nedra Pickler wrote. It should be noted that Ms Pickler is not the cleanest of disinterested observers. As Mediamatters wrote:
In a February 24 Associated Press article about conservative attacks on Sen. Barack Obama's patriotism, staff writer Nedra Pickler quoted Roger Stone's assertion that "[Sen.] Barack Obama is out of the McGovern wing of the party, and he is part of the blame America first crowd." But Pickler identified Stone only as a "Republican consultant." She did not mention that Stone established the anti-Hillary Clinton 527 group Citizens United Not Timid which emphasizes its acronym on its website and on T-shirts...
I'm inclined to take Mr. Obama at his word, mostly because it would be really stupid to say such a thing deliberately. But the remark comes on the heels of unprecedented personal invective directed at Ms. Palin and her family from Obama supporters, and it does sound like a campaign meme. The video of Mr. Obama's remarks is on YouTube. Watch it and judge for yourself.
Ok...what? So he doesn't think Senator Obama called Governor Palin a pig? After using half his column space to write about it?
In any event, so here are the remarks on youtube:
Transcript:
Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out George Bush. Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove style politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington. That's not change. That's just calling something, the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
Where, again, is the reference to Governor Palin? The WATBs over at the McCain campaign demand an apology for the unfair smear of their VP candidate. But for what?
And anyway take a cloooose look at the text. IF (and this is a long stretch - a very long stretch) the metaphor does revolve around Governor Palin, she's the lipstick. The McCain claim that it's "different" is what's the pig.
Jack even continues the conservative whining by complaining about some mean things coming from an Obama surrogate regarding Governor Palin:
Mr. McCain chose as his running mate "someone with zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs," Rep. Russ Carnahan said in his introduction of Sen. Joe Biden at an event in Missouri. "There is no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick."
But take a look at it again. This is from the St Louis Beacon:
Also speaking was U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri's Third District, which includes the Mehlville area.
Carnahan ticked off a litany of what he described as Bush administration failures: the war in Iraq, the national debt, high gas prices, exporting jobs outside the U.S., record home foreclosures and record student loan debts.
"This the record John McCain bragged about," Carnahan said.
Carnahan called McCain's decision to name Palin to the ticket a mistake. "He buckled to the right wing," he said of McCain. "She has zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. And there is no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick." He was referring to Palin's joke at the Republican national convention in which she asked supporters whether they knew the difference between a "hockey mom and a pit pull.
The "record" (i.e. "the pig") being referred to is either the Bush administration's many failures (Carnahan even uses the same word) OR Palin's "zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs." If anything (and again this is a stretch), she's the lipstick.
Don't these folks understand metaphor?
I'll leave it here with something from Obama's response to this whole "controversy":
See it would be funny, it would be funny except -- of course the news media all decided that that was the lead story yesterday. They'd much rather have the story -- this is the McCain campaign -- would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future.
This happens every election cycle. Every four years. This is what we do. We've got an energy crisis. We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on, veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about! this is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about.
This is what the whiners over at the GOP want to talk about.
Back in early September, the OPJ blogged about Sarah Palin's book banning proclivities. The by-now completely untrustworthy McCain campaign has denied everything, of course. Governor Palin herself regarded the story as "an old wives tale" This is from ABC:
In the remaining part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to air later tonight on "20/20," she denies ever having tried to ban a book while mayor of Wasilla.
Of course. But when she was on the city council:
But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to [Laura] Chase (the campaign manager during Ms. Palin’s first run for mayor in 1996)and [former Mayor John] Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.
“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
Ahh, wiggle room. Republicans just love their wiggle room.
Note to Fred Honsberger: It's nice to hear you on KDKA, my friend. But Fred, recently I've heard you defend Governor Palin with this line of reasoning:
But no books were ever banned from the library.
You have to know that that's not really much of a defense. Here's why: It's pretty obvious that she tried to ban books she (and/or her church) found offensive. Isn't that bad enough? What defender of free thought would even want to ban a book?
Whether she succeeded is another matter altogether. But just trying to get a book banned is sin enough in a free society, don't you think?
The McCain campaign released more sleaze this week, including this ad (approved by the formerly honorable John McCain):
Factcheck.org has an analysis out that takes a look at each part of the ad ("Good-looking", "Marching orders" and "Disrespectful") and found each to be, well, "particularly egregious" and:
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new TV ad that distorts quotes from the Obama campaign. It takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin.
The "good looking" part is from this interview with Joe Biden, who's quoted by ABC News as saying this:
"From our perspective the whole deal is how does the government help you get back up without getting in the way?" Biden asked. "There's a gigantic - gigantic - difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent. And that is that - "
The crowd laughed.
"Well there's obvious differences," Biden said, beginning to ham it up. "She's good looking," he said, laughing.
For the humor-challenged out there, Joe Biden was actually saying two things when he pointed out the one obvious difference between he and Palin: She's good looking and he isn't. Well THAT'S certainly disrespectful.
By the way, the same ABC piece has Rush Limbaugh himself call Palin "a babe."
The "Marching orders" part comes from this article at The Politico:
“Right down the line,” he said. “She tried to attack Obama by saying he had no significant legislative accomplishments — maybe that’s what she was told — but she should talk to Sen. Lugar, talk to Sen. Coburn, talk to people across the aisle in Illinois where he passed dozens of major laws to expand health care reform welfare, reduce taxes on working families. So I think she had an assignment and she went out and she discharged it.” [emphasis added]
Then there the charge that Obama is being disrespectful for calling Sarah Palin a liar.
But, she is. She supported the so-called "bridge to nowhere" (and campaigned on it) before Congress pulled the plug on the funding. Factcheck.org even says so:
Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.
A couple weeks ago, URA Executive Director Pat Ford resigned in an e-mail to Mayor Luke Ravenstal's Chief-of-Staff Yarone Zober. In this e-mail, he accused the Ravenstahl administration of a "culture of corruption" and political retaliation.
Ford's lawyer Lawrence Fischer elaborated (though without specifics):
[P]olitical contributions to the mayor seem to be rewarded in the awards of contracts.
Ouch, resignations! Uh-oh, retailiations! Oooo, a whiff of corruption!
Pittsburgh's Urban Redevelopment Authority settled today with Pat Ford, its former executive director, by agreeing to pay him approximately $90,000 in salary plus benefits to close out his employment contract nearly four months early, forego a potential lawsuit and end what had become a bitter public standoff.
And Ford's replacement? Take a look:
"We like people who get things done, and Rob Stephany is one of those people," said URA Board Chairman Yarone Zober. "He's a man of vision, a man of integrity."
Wow - Yarone gets around, huh? I had no idea. In any event, today a friend of ours wasn't happy:
Pittsburgh Council President Doug Shields formally asked the U.S. Attorney and the state Attorney General to investigate city development affairs today, in the wake of yesterday's settlement between the Urban Redevelopment Authority and its former executive director, Pat Ford, who has broadly alleged deception, corruption and retaliation by Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's administration.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority agreed Thursday to pay former executive director Pat Ford about $100,900 in salary and benefits to go away quietly.
The city authority's five-member board of directors unanimously voted to give Ford his $117,875 a year salary and about $800 a month in health benefits through June 30, 2009, a deal that runs six months longer than Ford's request in his resignation letter.
In exchange, Ford would be legally bound by a "non-disparagement" agreement that prohibits him from publicly criticizing the URA or the city -- a theme of his Aug. 27 resignation letter in which he claimed the city's administration had "a culture of deception and corruption."
I got a few minutes this afternoon with Council President Shields. Needless to say he had a few things on his mind.
"Enough is enough," he said criticizing Ravenstahl for saying that the settlement was "protecting the public" while not actually saying what the mayor was protecting the public from. Shields guessed that the mayor's office "felt panicked" by Ford's resignation letter and questioned Ravenstahl's description of a "settlement of potential claims." What claims? he asked. Ravenstahl claimed that Ford's letter was a lie. If that's the case, then why the settlement? Shields asked rhetorically.
I devil advocated and asked about the eventual Ravenstahl counter: that it's all a political attack from someone running for mayor and that we should all see the attack through that filter. Shields reiterated he's not running for mayor and, in fact, is reluctant to even think about it. "There's only one guy running for mayor," he said so maybe the public should view his response through the filter that he's running for mayor.
"I think they just paid someone to go away," he said and that there are enough questions that someone has to investigate. While the City Council isn't an investigatory body, it can trigger an inquiry elsewhere, he said. Thus the letters to the State Attorney General Tom Corbett and the local US Attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan. Shields has every intention, he said, to meet with both Attorney General Corbett and USAttorney Buchanan. If the inquiries find nothing bad, he said, then fine. But then the questions will have been asked and answered. He said this is substantive.
"It's not about an SUV with BBQ sauce with charcoal dust" on it, he said.
He added that the people have a right to know what the mayor meant by "potential claims" when he says that the settlement was done to protect the city from those claims.
During our conversation, Shields got a phone call from his mother who suggested he quit his job and get a Starbucks franchise. He also said that if the mayor somehow got him the same deal as Ford (pay for the rest of the year plus an extra five months) he'd be more than happy to quit.
"Then the mayor can protect the public from me," he snarked.
UPDATE: Embarrassing (for me) spelling error has been fixed. Thanks, Gary.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing.
Pssst, Sarah. You are saying you know God's will. You are saying the exact opposite of what Lincoln said. .
THIS is the woman the GOP wants to be a heart beat away from the Oval Office?
Via Talkingpointsmemo. Take a listen to how she tries to answer a simple question about the "Bush Doctrine." It's pay-ay-ainfully obvious she has no idea what it is.
Didn't we send tens of thousands of American troops into harms way based on that doctrine? Didn't thousands DIE for that doctrine? Weren't tens of thousands more injured and maimed for that doctrine?
Why doesn't Sarah Palin know what it is?
The transcript (from MSNBC):
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
Why is it that Charlie Gibson has to educate the REPUBLICAN candidate for the Vice President of the United States on the definition of THE FRICKIN BUSH DOCTRINE?
Some of you may have -- I'm assuming you guys have heard this, watching the news. I'm talking about John McCain's economic politics, I say, "This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."
And suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska."
[Laughter from audience]
See it would be funny, it would be funny except -- of course the news media all decided that that was the lead story yesterday. They'd much rather have the story -- this is the McCain campaign -- would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future.
This happens every election cycle. Every four years. This is what we do. We've got an energy crisis. We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on, veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about! this is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about.
You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate, It's not the republican candidate. It's you, the American people. because then we go another year or another four years or another eight years without addressing the issues that matter to you. Enough.
I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift-boat politics. Enough is enough.
The Washington Post Editorial Board seems to agree:
IT'S HARD to think of a presidential campaign with a wider chasm between the seriousness of the issues confronting the country and the triviality, so far anyway, of the political discourse. On a day when the Congressional Budget Offiice warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government's rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Sen. John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Sen. Barack Obama for using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.
Mr. Obama's supposedly offending remark was not only not offensive -- it also was not directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "The other side, suddenly, they're saying 'we're for change too,' " Mr. Obama said. "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." With a woman on the ticket, apparently all references to cosmetics -- or pork of the non-bridge variety, for that matter -- are forbidden. "Sen. Obama owes Gov. Palin an apology," sniffed former Massachusetts governor Jane Swift. "Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a pig is not exactly what we want to see." No matter that Mr. McCain used the lipstick-on-a-pig phrase himself, referring to (female) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health-care plan, or that (female) former McCain aide Torie Clarke wrote a book with that title. In the heat of a campaign, operatives will pounce on any misstep and play to the referees over any arguable foul. We understand that, and certainly the Obama campaign has not been above such tactics. But this cynical use of the gender card is unusually silly.
Without his lying vice president, Senator (and formerly honorable) John McCain isn't doing too well:
After lunching with a roundtable of women at Philadelphia’s Down Home Diner, McCain shook hands with supporters and strode up to a podium to deliver a statement. But as he spoke, chants of “Obama, Obama, Obama” filled the room.
Reporters craned forward trying to hear the Arizona senator. Unfortunately for McCain — and possibly overlooked by aides who planned the event — a section of the diner opened up to a market where a crowd had gathered behind a cordon.
A large contingent of Obama supporters showed up, mixed with some who had bumper stickers reading “Democrats for McCain”.
Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.
Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double.
Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950).
One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.
Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.
Yea, that's a "maverick." That's a "reformer." She increased the windfall-profits tax on oil in Alaska.
She. Increased. A. Tax.
On Oil. Can someone please tell me why conservatives love her so much? Other than sheer political expediency?
First, let's stack up the facts and then we'll see how the formerly honorable John McCain has spun them into something shameful and perverse.
In late October 2004 during their third debate, then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama and then (and current) complete whackjob Alan Keyes got into a discussion about sex education:
KEYES: [to Obama]: You voted that sex education should begin in kindergarten but it would be "age appropriate sex education." But you opposed putting internet filters in schools. It makes me wonder what exactly you think is age appropriate. Do you believ that in the 2nd grade we should be teaching from books like Heather Has Two Mommies.
OBAMA: Actually, that wasn't what I had in mind. We have an existing law that mandates sex education in the schools and we want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age appropriate. I have a 3 year old daughter and a six year old daughter and one of the things I talk about with my wife is the possibility of someone touching them inappropriately. And that's why [sex education] is in the law. So they can exercise some kind of protection against abuse. As for filters, I have voted for them. In the school setting, there was information schoolchildren could not access such as information about breast cancer, which is why there was a broad opposition. [emphasis added]
Then, back in July of this year there was this from David Brody of CBNNews (CBN, as you may know, is the Christian Broadcasting Network and it was started by none other than Pat "Abortionists, atheists, and lesbians are to blame for 9/11" Robertson). Brody, reacting to the ABC headline that read "Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama." quoted Obama as saying that sex-ed for kindergarteners is "the right thing to do" as long as it's (now wait for it) "age appropriate." Brody continues:
So, at this point at least, what Obama is referring to is teaching five year olds about inappropriate touching. The Obama campaign also tells The Brody File that parents would be able to opt out. As for further details, the touching aspect seems to be the main idea here. Obama doesn't want to hand out condoms to five year olds. He doesn't want cucumber demonstrations as part of show and tell.
In the ABC piece we learn more:
When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'" [emphasis added]
The Obama campaign has pointed out that the bill would simply add instruction on disease prevention to already existing Illinois sex-ed standards.
So we're all set on the facts? Good. Now take a look at this shameful and perverse ad from the McCain camp:
The response from the Obama camp:
"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why."
David already blogged on the new Barack Obama ad which points out how non maverick McCain-Palin really are when it comes to earmarks and spending taxpayer dollars, but here's a new twist.
While on the one hand, the Palin half of the McCain-Palin Republican ticket billed her state for nights she spent at home:
By James V. Grimaldi and Karl Vick Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, September 9, 2008; Page A01
ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.
[snip]
Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by The Washington Post.
[snip]
In the past, per diem claims by Alaska state officials have carried political risks. In 1988, the head of the state Commerce Department was pilloried for collecting a per diem charge of $50 while staying in his Anchorage home, according to local news accounts. The commissioner, the late Tony Smith, resigned amid a series of controversies
"It was quite the little scandal," said Tony Knowles, the Democratic governor from 1994 to 2000. "I gave a direction to all my commissioners if they were ever in their house, whether it was Juneau or elsewhere, they were not to get a per diem because, clearly, it is and it looks like a scam -- you pay yourself to live at home," he said.
From The Wall Street Journal (and we know this is true because the WSJ is such a liberal news source). This is the article's second sentence:
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state. [emphasis added.]
A few paragraphs later:
She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
When the Wall Street Journal calls you a liar, you're a liar.
That last line ("a naked lie") is telling. It's from the New Republic and has to do with the claim by the McCain camp that Palin "stopped the bridge to nowhere."
You're looking for the proof? Take a look. Talking Points Memo has video:
She supported the bridge to no where. She supported the road to the bridge to nowhere. She supported getting more congressional earmarks. How can the McCain camp get away with such obvious lies?
If you do ONE thing about voting machines this year: Sign up by 5:00pm TODAY to speak to County Council Tues
Do you know that we have no idea what software is actually on our voting machines in Allegheny County? Shouldn't we take a peek?
In the two years since our voting machines have arrived from a factory in the Philippines, the voting software has never been audited for authenticity. We are asking for public software audits that compare our voting software with the software certified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. "Unauthorized patches" have been used illegally in other states by the voting machine vendors. Allegheny County promised to verify our voting software. Now, we are calling for the Board of Election to hold a special meeting to make software verification happen. We are asking for public observation of a random sample audit of the voting software on 40 voting machines. The media are willing to cover this if we can make a show of public support.
2) Show up on Tuesday (Sept. 9th) at the County Council Meeting (4th Floor, County Courthouse - Gold Room) to say the magic words: "Please, Verify Our Voting Software!" (Actual speaking time is likely to be between 5:30 and 6:30, after various proclamations.)
The president announced the surge decision Jan. 10, 2007. Five more brigades would go to Baghdad; 4,000 Marines would head to Anbar province.
The next morning, he went to Fort Benning, Ga., to address military personnel and their families. His decision had been opposed by Casey and Abizaid, his military commanders in Iraq. Pace and the Joint Chiefs, his top military advisers, had suggested a smaller increase, if any at all. Schoomaker, the Army chief, had made it clear that the five brigades didn't really exist under the Army's current policy of 12-month rotations. But on this morning, the president delivered his own version of history.
"The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to -- by the way, that's what you want your commander-in-chief to do. You don't want decisions being made based upon politics or focus groups or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. They analyzed the plan, and they said to me and to the Iraqi government: 'This won't work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.' "
Bush went on, "And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, 'Mr. President, it's not going to work until -- unless we support -- provide more troops.' "
This, remember, is the guy who insisted that he was always "listening to the recommendations of the commanders on the ground."
Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.
‘‘You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,’’ according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.
In January 2007, Palin spoke out against a state supreme court ruling granting domestic partnership benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. She later vetoed a bill passed by the legislature to overturn the ruling; while she agreed with the bill's intent, she argued that it violated separation of powers (as it represented an attempt by the legislature to overturn a supreme court ruling by simple majority). She has stated firm opposition to same-sex marriage, and supported a 1998 constitutional amendment banning it in Alaska.
But it's all OK, because she says she "has gay friends."
I think I figured it out. Here's what the republicans do. They simply state, over and over again and with all the confidence in the world, stuff they want just enough voters to believe. They're hoping to have just enough, say, 50.7%, to win the next election.
And then they'll turn around and claim it as a mandate.
Doesn't matter that what they said isn't always 100% true. Or 100% complete.
That's what Jack Kelly's been doing with Sarah Palin. Note this week's column.
It's filled with fact-free sentences that sound like they have actual facts in them. Case in point:
Journalists last week cast aside the mask of objectivity to reveal they are so deeply in the tank for Mr. Obama most have grown gills. For six days, Sarah Palin and her family were subjected to a relentless barrage of innuendo. Journalists were trying to "define" her before she had an opportunity to introduce herself to the people in the lower 48. She was portrayed as an ignorant redneck from a hick town who should be home caring for her children instead of running for high public office.
Really. Who? Who said she should be home caring for her children instead of running for high public office? Which journalist portrayed her as an ignorant redneck? Until there's a quotation to support this allegation there's no way (and I suspect this is Jack's plan) to check if it's true. Who's barraging us with innuendo now, Jack?
Then there's this confusing pair of sentences:
Then Sarah Palin got her opportunity to speak, and her enemies learned firsthand why her nickname is "Sarah Barracuda."
Dismiss if you will the rapturous response to Ms. Palin's speech by the delegates in the convention hall and the posters on conservative blogs. The best testament to its power was the lame response of the Obama campaign. They noted she had the help of a speechwriter (the very talented Matt Scully) in preparing her remarks. Well, duh. Every major political figure has speechwriters. Sarah Palin works fine without a script. It's Barack Obama who ums and ahs without a teleprompter.
Actually, that's not exactly what the Obama campaign said. They said the speech was written by Bush's former speechwriter. Here's the response:
The speech that Governor Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Governor Palin and John McCain want to define 'change' as voting with George Bush 90% of the time, that's their choice, but we don't think the American people are ready to take a 10% chance on change.
Jack would like to have us think that the speech Governor Palin gave was her own work and that she only got some "help" "preparing" it with it from a speechwriter. The "well duh"part is intended to blunt the point as being obvious. Turns out, though that the speech was written by McCain's speechwriters. In fact it was written before they knew Palin would be picked for VP. From the Washington Post:
There was a flutter of attention when McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told a group of Post reporters and editors yesterday that his team was having to rework the vice presidential acceptance speech because the original draft, prepared before Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen, was too "masculine." While we all wondered to ourselves what might make a speech masculine or feminine, no one batted an eye at the underlying revelation: that the campaign was writing the nominee's speech before knowing who the nominee would be.
So what was the point of Jack's barb? I'm not sure.
Jack continues spinning:
First, this race is no longer between a candidate who advocates change and the status quo, as Democrats would like to frame it. It's between two different visions of change, and between a ticket that's actually delivered reform, and a ticket that just talks about it. The argument that John McCain represents a third term for George W. Bush was strained to start with. It's ludicrous now.
Second, the Republican base is more fired up, and the party more united than it's been since Ronald Reagan ran for his second term. Conservatives see in Sarah Palin Ronald Reagan in a dress, the brains and backbone of Margaret Thatcher in a younger, prettier package. The Grand Old Party has a bright new face.
Since we're quoting The New Republic, here, I'll let Howard Wolfson take on Jack's first paragraph. He wrote it the day John McCain gave his acceptance speech:
McCain needs to refute this charge [that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time] tonight by making his differences with GOP orthodoxy clear to the American people. This will not be easy. First, the crowd of GOP loyalists doesn't want to hear it. These are Bush partisans who believe that their man has been a good president, and many remain deeply suspicious of McCain. Will McCain challenge his base?
Secondly, McCain's case on the merits is weak. During the Bush Presidency, McCain has moved steadily rightward, repudiating his own positions on issues like taxes and abortion. And he wears his support for the war in Iraq--a war the public associates with Bush--like an albatross around his neck.
Hardly ludicrous, Jack.
For ludicrous, I'd have to go with "Palin is Ronald Reagan in a dress" or "Palin as a 'younger prettier' Margaret Thatcher." Apart from the obvious sexism of both, the facts (remember those?) simply do not compare. Margaret Thatcher was first elected to national office in 1959, sixteen years before becoming leader of her party and nineteen years before becoming Prime Minister.
Nineteen years ago, Sarah Palin (though younger and prettier) was still three years away from joining the Wasilla City Council.
To compare one to the other is just, well, ludicrous.
The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.
The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.
On his syndicated radio show, Jim Quinn referred to the National Organization for Women as "the National Organization for Whores," and said of Philadelphia Daily News columnist Fatimah Ali: "[Y]ou know, Fatimah, what's your real name? Come on, seriously. I mean, get an American name, will you, if you want to be an American." He then asked: "You don't suppose she's a liberal black Muslim, do you?"
Here's more of what Jim Quinn said:
The Democrat [sic] Party is now the "Alinsky Party." Yesterday, I said, I wonder how long it's going to be before one of these Alinskyites -- formerly known as Democrats -- one of these Alinskyites out there suggests that Sarah Palin is not really a woman. Remember Kay Bailey Hutchison was a female impersonator, according to the National Organization for Whores? Remember that? Well, James Lewis, American Thinker: "is Sarah Palin really a woman?"
NOW said that Kay Bailey Hutchinson was a female impersonator? Really? When?
Actually it was Gloria Steimen who said that. In 1993. Here's what she said:
Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them is worse than having no one.
Hey, I get it, it was a metaphor! I wonder how Jim Quinn got something so easy so wrong.
Anyway, this line has been around for years. Take a look at this from CNN from 2000:
[LAURA] INGRAHAM:I actually don't have an abortion discussion in the book because it actually doesn't fall into what -- which I really believe to be the Hillary trap, except it is part of the general liberal idea about government, which the global sisterhood believes that true women, real women should ascribe to. You should be pro- choice, you should be anti-gun you should be pro-big government. Because NOW was the same group that called Kay Bailey Hutchison a female impersonator.
[PATRICIA] IRELAND: No, no, no, that was Gloria Steinem, who is not...
INGRAHAM: Gloria Steinem, OK.
IRELAND: ... National Organization for Women. I know we all look alike, Laura.
Unfortunately I have no idea exactly what the missing word (or words) that ellipsis stands for. It's obvious, however, that Patricia Ireland (who at the time was President of NOW) was distancing the organization from Gloria Steinem. In any event, it was a correction that Laura Ingraham accepted.
But take a look at the context of Quinn's paragraph. He wondered how long "these Alinskyites" (this a reference to "community organizer" Saul Alinsky) will question whether Sarah Palin is indeed not a female. Then he sites this article from The American Thinker, written by James Lewis.
Has anyone told Quinn that The American Thinker is a conservative magazine? James Lewis is a conservative. Any question, read this.
Anyway, take a look at Lewis' article. It's satire.
The Lewis article DOES mention one blog post that poses Steinem's metaphor - kind of. Again the metaphor is obvious:
Not only is Sarah Palin not a feminist, she is as anti-woman as Bush and McCain combined. That is the reason why McCain picked her; not because she is a woman and he wanted to be underhanded (which he totally did,) but because she’s a Republican, conservative man who just happens to be in a woman’s body.
That's it. That's the source of all of this. Amazing, isn't it?
So 15 years after the Steinem/Hutchinson line, a blog called Mentrual Poetry uses a similar metaphor to criticize Sarah Palin and then Jim Quinn calls the National Organization for Women the National Organization for Whores.
How much you wanna bet he doesn't think it's a metaphor?
And while I know this is completely anecdotal, I polled two people I know on Palin today. Both watched her speech. Both are Democratic females age 70+ who really liked Hillary Clinton and who said that while they wouldn't vote for McCain, they couldn't vote for Obama.
They are not classic PUMAs -- I doubt they even know what that term means -- but they are super voters who said they'd likely bag the election this year.
Gov. Sarah Palin last night on how a McCain-Palin ticket would help the working and middle class with the faltering economy: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sarah Palin couldn't have made the all important evangelical wing of the Republican Party any happier last night unless she had started speaking in tongues. Since that would have been a tad too much on prime-time TV she settled for speaking in code.
First, a word on her performance. She performed the speech beautifully. It should be noted that like many top Republicans, Palin's first love is the art of performance. She was a sportscaster who wanted a gig on ESPN. Much like Fred Thompson who always seemed like he would prefer giving an Emmy acceptance speech than speak on the Senate floor or Ronald Reagan who would never have become president if only he could have gotten better roles than "Bedtime for Bonzo" she knows how to act in front of a camera. Biden: please take note.
Now, on to the content:
Well I was born in a small town
And I live in a small town Probly die in a small town Oh, those small communities
Wondering about all that sarcasm about being a community organizer? Billmon nails it:
On the face of it, it's a pretty weird repetitive theme. Obama's done lots of stuff -- teaching, state legislature, writing books, etc. -- but "community organizer" seems like an odd one to fixate on. The words themselves have generally positive connotations, particularly that first one: everybody is in favor of "community" (as long as its their community).
Which is exactly the point, I think. Used the way the GOP speakers used the words tonight (i.e. with a sneer), community = ghetto and organizer = activist.
It essentially was a coded way of pointing out Obama's work in, with and for the black community (see? even I'm doing it) on the South Side of Chicago. Also the fact that his work involved helping low-income people stand up for their legal rights, as opposed to a GOP-sanctioned "real" job like business owner or career military officer (or moose hunter.) They were trying to put Obama back on the same level as Jesse Jackson -- i.e., the black protest candidate -- and mocking him for it.
To cut right to the nasty, they were using "community organizer" as a euphemism for "poverty pimp."
Here's someone else who wasn't laughing:
Basically more of the infamous Southern Strategy.
Plus, Republicans know that they have fallen even with the working class. Increasingly hard economic times, war fatigue and the realization that Republicans seriously fucked up Katrina (total lack of competence) has made many willing to actually consider voting their economic interest and less vulnerable to the constant blitz of "only we can keep you safe from terrorists and those who would kill Jesus all over again" (Democrats).
That's why Palin had to pour on the small town love like nobody's business.
Besides, everyone knows the alternative to small towns are big cities which are, um, darker and sinful. And while small town families may have "challenges" if they are good Christians, they get the guy to put a ring on their finger and all is forgiven while the evil sluts in the big, bad city become single mother welfare queens and are illegals anyway sucking the life's blood out of the good, good salt of the earth types. Which is why when Palin had the chance, she line item vetoed support for unwed teen moms.
I am woman, hear me birth
Did you know Sarah is a Mom? Five times over? Did you know that evil Democratic types wanted her to ABORT!ABORT!ABORT! her child with Down Syndrome? Well, if you happen across many of her online supporters, you would certainly be led to believe that we had all sent her wire hangers in the mail.
Palin and her supporters regale her choice to keep her baby while trying to insure that no one else has any choice in their own family planning. How is anything a choice when their party platform demands that all abortions be outlawed including those to save the life of a woman?
"A Servant's Heart"
I want a servants heart And I will gladly bear the markings Of one held captive yet free Not my will but thine For Lord in your own time Only you can make a servants heart
He compels me to go But I would rather stay He sent me a valley Once again today My self determined will Keeps tearing me apart But when the works completed I'll have a servants heart
More and more Lord I see There's a work I must do Father may you find me faithful Trusting only you Take all that I have been There, your will to start And then I'll serve no other master with this servants heart
Palin used this phrase both in her speech last night and in her speech last Friday when she was introduced to the country.
Just like George W. Bush, Palin uses evangelical dog whistles. This phrase is one:
The third factor is whether Palin's deep devotion to God will cloud or impact her political judgment. In her speech last Friday, Gov. Palin mentioned her intention to serve government with "a servant's heart." According to the National Catholic Reporter, "That reaction wasn't simply about approval of good government; the phrase 'servant's heart' is a popular bit of evangelical terminology, used as a shorthand for Christian humility."
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart. I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States.
Translation for those who cannot hear evangelical dog whistles:
I will serve Jesus as vice president of the United States according to my [and your] correct brand of Christianity.
Might as well have been speaking in tongues
And then there was her distortion of her own record which twisted the facts into outright lies:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
There was a flutter of attention when McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told a group of Post reporters and editors yesterday that his team was having to rework the vice presidential acceptance speech because the original draft, prepared before Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen, was too "masculine." While we all wondered to ourselves what might make a speech masculine or feminine, no one batted an eye at the underlying revelation: that the campaign was writing the nominee's speech before knowing who the nominee would be.
[snip]
So when you watch Sarah Palin tonight, expect to learn something about how well she handles a Teleprompter.
How mavericky!
(Yeah, yeah, I know they all have speechwriters, but as the article points out usually you at least know who you're writing the speech for so you can at least put in some of their flavor, or [gasp] maybe even some of their thoughts...) .
To each new revelation on that NUTJOBsecessionist-loving, sending our soldiers to Iraq is a "task that is from God" believing, book-banning, creationist-proselytizing, not knowing what the vice president does, bridge-to-no-where flip-flopping, can't get straight whether she believes in abstinence-only/Sex Ed in school, abortion-banning, historically ignorant, flat out liar about her love for earmarks/lobbyists, ethically-challenged lawyered up Gov. Sarah* Palin:
Todd Palin, husband of Sarah, was a member of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party from 1995 through 2002. That's the information we just got from the Alaska Division of elections.
Probably not coincidentally, 2002 was the first time Sarah Palin ran for statewide office in Alaska.
Can you even imagine the fallout if Michelle Obama had belonged to a secessionist party?
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
And, when it came to vetting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their vice presidential candidate, while presidential nominee John McCain was lackadaisical at best, she was vetted by the Council for National Policy, "an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy" whose members include extremists like Focus on the Family's James Dobson. .
I won't be discussing pregnancies or children or State Troopers or Ted Stevens. The blog posting is about the Alaskan Independence Party and Sarah Palin's involvement with it.
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.
From their website:
The Alaskan Independence Party can be summed up in just two words:
News of Mrs Palin's former membership comes as the latest in a string of potentially embarrassing disclosures about her past.
The party has lobbied since the 1970s for the right to hold a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States. Its motto, "Alaska First", contrasts sharply with the John McCain campaign slogan: "Country First."
It seeks "the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska" and aims to be "self-sufficient" by using profits from Alaskan oil and gas resources. It claims that the vote held in 1958 which led to Alaska becoming the 49th state of the US was corrupt and did not offer a proper choice.
Yea -they vetted her. Another example of the McCain campaign's complete incompetance.
Again a thought experiment. Imagine if Barack Obama had been a member of a political party that had a sucessionist platform - it wouldn't matter if he'd left the fringe ouusjrwparty (as Palin did in 1996), His patriotism would be questioned every minute of every day from here to the election.
Who's questioning this Republican's patriotism? ALASKA FIRST!
Goodman was arrested along with Democracy Now producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. As of 9:15 PM EST, the Ramsey County jail has charged Goodman with "conspiracy to riot" and released her, but is still detaining Kouddous and Salazar. No charges have been pressed against them.
Laurie, the phone operator at the County Jail says she "hopes charges will be presented within the hour." As of right now, Kouddous and Salazar are being held without charges.
On the same day that the Republicans were forced to dramatically cut back their convention activities, the Palin Meltdown unfolded with extraordinary speed. It's worth pondering the totality of what happened today, in a mere half day...
The news that Palin once backed the Bridge to Nowhere went national.
It emerged that Palin has links to the bizarro Alaska Independence Party, which harbors the goal of seceding from the union that McCain and Palin seek to lead.
The news broke that as governor, Palin relied on an earmark system she now opposes. Taken along with the Bridge to Nowhere stuff, this threatens to undercut her reformist image, something that was key to her selection as McCain's Veep candidate.
The news broke that Palin's 17-year-old daughter became pregnant out of wedlock at a time when the conservative base had finally started rallying behind McCain's candidacy.
Barely moments after McCain advisers put out word that McCain had known of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, the Anchorage Daily Newsrevealed that Palin's own spokesperson hadn't known about it only two days ago.
A senior McCain adviser at the Republican convention was forced into the rather embarrassing position of arguing that McCain had known about the pregnancy "last week" -- without saying what day last week he knew about it.
It came out that Republican lawyers are up in Alaska vetting Palin -- now, more than 72 hours after it was announced that she'd been picked.
Palin lawyered up in relation to the trooper-gate probe in Alaska -- a move that ensures far more serious attention to the story from the major news orgs.
What else will come out today? After all, there are still six hours left until September 2nd...
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced moments ago that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant and is planning to keep the baby and marry the father.
But of course, this is not necessarily bad news for the social conservatives hoping to support the republican candidate:
On the one hand, premarital sex is frowned upon. On the other, the Palins' commitment to keep the baby and Bristol Palin's pledge to marry the father of the child gives social conservatives something to latch on to if they are looking for positives out of this situation.
The hypocrisy is obvious - the decision not to terminate the pregnancy erases the whole teenage sex before marriage thing.
The McCain folks have already started spinning with the talking points. I loved this one:
The children of candidates do not choose to run for office and be thrust into the spotlight.
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.
Granted, that was June, 1998 and neither Clinton parent was actually running for anything then, but if the man has no respect for the First Family, how can he respect the family of anyone running for President?
Before we go any further on this, we should all ask ourselves if Sarah Palin were a democrat, what would the reaction be?
First off, the republicans would be shreiking ear to ear about the candidate's obvious lack of morals for raising a daughter who makes such bad choices.
