A friend sent along this clip today. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought Matt Damon was onto something:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ricky-van-veen/sarah-palin-disney-traile_b_129387.html
(View the Damon interview which spawned this trailer here: http://maxwellshammer.blogspot.com/2008/09/im-with-professor-damon-on-this-one.html)
Friday, September 26, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Update: Palin's Trooper-Gate Troubles
Sarah Palin's original claim that Walt Monegan was ultimately fired for taking an unauthorized trip to Washington, D.C. is false. Documents recently obtained by ABC include a Travel Authorization form which was filed and approved prior to Monegan's trip to the nation's capitol. The former Public Safety Commissioner was also said to have been "egregiously insubordinate" and a "rogue" actor within Alaska's public sphere. Those claims are yet to be supported by any tangible evidence.
It's obvious now that this scandal in not so clear-cut after all. Palin initially welcomed a full investigation but has now been stonewalling for the better part of 2 months. She's apparently caught in a bold-face lie here with this "unauthorized trip" nonsense, and who knows what other revelations will be revealed before the official report is published on October 10th. The one thing that is certain is that Palin has the capacity for duplicity.
She jumped on the Straight-Talk Express after the engine had quit and tried to fix it with some good ole folksy- hockey mom- abortion hating-gun toting-creationist tools, and some lies of her own. Now she's in a muddled mess that could derail the Express for good.
It's obvious now that this scandal in not so clear-cut after all. Palin initially welcomed a full investigation but has now been stonewalling for the better part of 2 months. She's apparently caught in a bold-face lie here with this "unauthorized trip" nonsense, and who knows what other revelations will be revealed before the official report is published on October 10th. The one thing that is certain is that Palin has the capacity for duplicity.
She jumped on the Straight-Talk Express after the engine had quit and tried to fix it with some good ole folksy- hockey mom- abortion hating-gun toting-creationist tools, and some lies of her own. Now she's in a muddled mess that could derail the Express for good.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Biden on the Campaign Trail
Since Palin was selected as McCain's running mate, Joe Biden's role in this election has been reduced to that of fourth fiddle. Joe's rallies, which have been held in middle and lower class neighborhoods in swing states, have been drawing limited national media coverage and at times, disappointing crowds.
But please take a look at the video below and comment if you please. My take on this speech from Michigan is that Biden's well documented friendship and familiarity with McCain makes for powerful ammunition on the stump. He spends roughly 3/4ths of this speech railing against "John's" voting record and vision for the country. Biden is able to drive the points home effectively by sprinkling in commentary on how the man he once considered a good friend has become a two-faced, Carl Rove styled politician over the past few months. The sincerity of his disappointment can't be doubted.
Biden is targeting at risk Hillary supporters and white working class voters. With more speeches like this one, he may just have a bigger impact on those groups than the media coverage would make us believe.
Here's the speech:
Biden's reference to the GOP's recent "Lose Your Home, Lose Your Vote" scheme is talked about in more detail here: http://maxwellshammer.blogspot.com/2008/09/gop-lose-your-home-lose-your-vote.html
But please take a look at the video below and comment if you please. My take on this speech from Michigan is that Biden's well documented friendship and familiarity with McCain makes for powerful ammunition on the stump. He spends roughly 3/4ths of this speech railing against "John's" voting record and vision for the country. Biden is able to drive the points home effectively by sprinkling in commentary on how the man he once considered a good friend has become a two-faced, Carl Rove styled politician over the past few months. The sincerity of his disappointment can't be doubted.
Biden is targeting at risk Hillary supporters and white working class voters. With more speeches like this one, he may just have a bigger impact on those groups than the media coverage would make us believe.
Here's the speech:
Biden's reference to the GOP's recent "Lose Your Home, Lose Your Vote" scheme is talked about in more detail here: http://maxwellshammer.blogspot.com/2008/09/gop-lose-your-home-lose-your-vote.html
Friday, September 19, 2008
GOP: Lose Your Home, Lose Your Vote
In a little-noted development this week, the GOP launched a campaign to deprive citizens of Michigan who have had their homes foreclosed of their right to vote. Most of the targeted citizens remain official residents of those homes, which calls into question the wisdom of this particular conniving effort. Regardless, Obama filed suit in Michigan state court to block the GOP.
In Obama's filing, the latest GOP scheme to block the votes of disenfranchised citizens is set within a larger historical context of previous statewide and national programs to do the same. Here's an excerpt:
"Defendant Republicans have a long history of engaging in coordinated, systematic campaigns to suppress and deny the right to vote of American citizens. Those campaigns are often targeted at various racial groups, language minorities, or individuals of low or modest economic circumstances whom Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to support them in political campaigns."
Though the court is likely to rule narrowly and avoid implicating Republican leaders in widespread insidious actions, I commend Obama for going for the juggular.
If McCain wants to play dirty, Obama is going to let the courts and eventually, the media, scrub him clean.
You can access the entire class action suit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/09/17/ObamavMich.pdf
In Obama's filing, the latest GOP scheme to block the votes of disenfranchised citizens is set within a larger historical context of previous statewide and national programs to do the same. Here's an excerpt:
"Defendant Republicans have a long history of engaging in coordinated, systematic campaigns to suppress and deny the right to vote of American citizens. Those campaigns are often targeted at various racial groups, language minorities, or individuals of low or modest economic circumstances whom Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to support them in political campaigns."
Though the court is likely to rule narrowly and avoid implicating Republican leaders in widespread insidious actions, I commend Obama for going for the juggular.
If McCain wants to play dirty, Obama is going to let the courts and eventually, the media, scrub him clean.
You can access the entire class action suit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/09/17/ObamavMich.pdf
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Hagel Speaks Out Against Palin
I respect Hagel for speaking up for common sense and reason:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10435997
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10435997
I'm a Fundamental and So Are You?
John McCain has once again found within himself the ability to morph into an entirely different candidate. Just when you think he might settle on one identity, he slips your grasp, only to pop-up minutes later wearing a new mask and touting a new slogan. First he was the experienced candidate. Then he was the Maverick. Then he was the candidate for change. This time he came out of the phone booth as the barrel-chested, pro-regulation, greed fighting machine; an image he obviously believes appeals to some part of his delusional base.
After 26 years of being consistently and at time even painstakingly anti-regulation, John woke up this morning, looked himself in the mirror and said, "What the heck. What could one day of sane economic principles really do to hurt my chances?" And the answer of course is nothing. This obvious populist pandering will do nothing to harm his chances unless voters start to care about characteristics like honesty, consistency and reliability in their leaders. Most people who do care about those traits are now either firmly in Obama's camp or making the long trek from the outer reaches of the far Right.
And while Barack was making speeches outlining, in detail, his plan for getting our economy back on track, what was McCain doing? Two things: burying his head in the sand by calling for the establishment of a committee and spewing bullshit about Fundamentals.
The former is less insulting to our intelligence as voters than the latter. He should be embarrassed by his inability to offer clear and substantive recommendations to stem this recession. Calling for a commission to be established instead of standing up and leading is a perfect example of what we could expect from a President McCain who is out of touch with reality and therefore unable to address it effectively. The man can't use a computer and can't text, how can we expect him to guide us to safe ground in the 21st century?
Regarding the second activity that John's been dabbling in - spewing bullshit to cover his ass - he's been repeating this line about how "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" since his campaign began. Barack cited an independent study in his last speech in Colorado which found 16 instances in what McCain has used the line. And now that it has become painfully obvious to any breathing organism on the planet that our economy's core is crumbling, what does McCain do? The only thing he can do; twist his rhetoric. Reality, the son-of-a-gun, had reared its ugly head and stuck its tongue out at him as if to say "You'll never escape me, no matter how hard you try."
So we've now learned from John that the "fundamentals" of the economy are not to be judged by looking at the performance of Wall St. or the international markets or our national debt. Nope. According to John, to see how strong the fundamentals of our economy are all the American worker needs is a mirror. Because we, the employed American citizens, are the fundamentals that John's been talking about this whole time!
How stupid are we?! All this time we've been worrying about Freddie and Fannie and Merrill and Lehman when all we needed to do was hit the bench press, do some squats and then flex. We are strong! We are the economy! The economy is strong! Screw work, I'm going to the gym to get my country back on track!
It's truly a shame that it's come to this. One candidate is out there offering solutions to our worst economic crisis in 70 years while the other is flattering the collective ego of delusional citizens with nonsensical, two-faced remarks.
And they're dead even in the polls. Simply terrifying.
After 26 years of being consistently and at time even painstakingly anti-regulation, John woke up this morning, looked himself in the mirror and said, "What the heck. What could one day of sane economic principles really do to hurt my chances?" And the answer of course is nothing. This obvious populist pandering will do nothing to harm his chances unless voters start to care about characteristics like honesty, consistency and reliability in their leaders. Most people who do care about those traits are now either firmly in Obama's camp or making the long trek from the outer reaches of the far Right.
And while Barack was making speeches outlining, in detail, his plan for getting our economy back on track, what was McCain doing? Two things: burying his head in the sand by calling for the establishment of a committee and spewing bullshit about Fundamentals.
The former is less insulting to our intelligence as voters than the latter. He should be embarrassed by his inability to offer clear and substantive recommendations to stem this recession. Calling for a commission to be established instead of standing up and leading is a perfect example of what we could expect from a President McCain who is out of touch with reality and therefore unable to address it effectively. The man can't use a computer and can't text, how can we expect him to guide us to safe ground in the 21st century?
Regarding the second activity that John's been dabbling in - spewing bullshit to cover his ass - he's been repeating this line about how "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" since his campaign began. Barack cited an independent study in his last speech in Colorado which found 16 instances in what McCain has used the line. And now that it has become painfully obvious to any breathing organism on the planet that our economy's core is crumbling, what does McCain do? The only thing he can do; twist his rhetoric. Reality, the son-of-a-gun, had reared its ugly head and stuck its tongue out at him as if to say "You'll never escape me, no matter how hard you try."
So we've now learned from John that the "fundamentals" of the economy are not to be judged by looking at the performance of Wall St. or the international markets or our national debt. Nope. According to John, to see how strong the fundamentals of our economy are all the American worker needs is a mirror. Because we, the employed American citizens, are the fundamentals that John's been talking about this whole time!
How stupid are we?! All this time we've been worrying about Freddie and Fannie and Merrill and Lehman when all we needed to do was hit the bench press, do some squats and then flex. We are strong! We are the economy! The economy is strong! Screw work, I'm going to the gym to get my country back on track!
It's truly a shame that it's come to this. One candidate is out there offering solutions to our worst economic crisis in 70 years while the other is flattering the collective ego of delusional citizens with nonsensical, two-faced remarks.
And they're dead even in the polls. Simply terrifying.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Trooper Gate Cover-up
Five Republican state officials have filed suit to halt the investigation into the firing Walt Monegan, who refused to dismiss Palin's ex-brother in-law from Alaska's state police force. Monegan claims that he repeatedly came under pressure from Palin to dismiss the officer, who was engaged in a bitter custody dispute with Palin's sister at the time. Monegan feels he was dismissed for not firing the trooper.
Palin initially welcomed a full investigation but has since appeared reluctant to let it run its course. Todd and Sarah Palin have been accused of pressuring the then-Public Safety Commissioner to fire the trooper and of having him dismissed when he refused. Palin claims Monegan was dismissed over budget disputes and "egregious insubordination".
Before the GOP allies filed this latest suit, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpeonas to Todd Palin and 10 members of Palin's administration. The initial probe gained bi-partisan support in the AK Legislative Council but has recently been deemed "partisan" and "tainted" by McCain camp officials who seem intent on stalling or halting it altogether.
We'll keep close tabs on the story as it unfolds, but at this point, Palin's reluctance to allow the investigation to run its course does seem curious.
Palin initially welcomed a full investigation but has since appeared reluctant to let it run its course. Todd and Sarah Palin have been accused of pressuring the then-Public Safety Commissioner to fire the trooper and of having him dismissed when he refused. Palin claims Monegan was dismissed over budget disputes and "egregious insubordination".
Before the GOP allies filed this latest suit, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpeonas to Todd Palin and 10 members of Palin's administration. The initial probe gained bi-partisan support in the AK Legislative Council but has recently been deemed "partisan" and "tainted" by McCain camp officials who seem intent on stalling or halting it altogether.
We'll keep close tabs on the story as it unfolds, but at this point, Palin's reluctance to allow the investigation to run its course does seem curious.
Obama's Time to Hit Hard - "They broke it. We'll fix it"
The Freddie/Fannie, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers debacles may be Barack's best chance to hit McCain where it hurts. Let's list the possible avenues for an Obama/Biden offensive on the economy:
The crisis:
McCain doesn't know much about the economy, according to him:
Barack on confronting the economic crisis:
- McCain has been avidly anti-regulation ("I am always for less regulation" - WSJ in March) and anti-oversight for 20+ years
- McCain has supported GOP economic policy over the past eight years
- McCain has been an influential member of the party that over eight years has taken our thriving economy and driven it into recession
- McCain has stated countless times (see video below) that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong", and CONTINUES TO DO SO!
- (But the McCain camp just released an ad saying that the economy is in crisis. Contradictory, two-faced and typical.)
- Fundamentals of our economy: Unemployment highest its been in recent history; gas prices over 4$ per gallon for first time and projected to rise; soaring food prices; enormous and growing debt with China; downfall of 4 American giants (Freddie, Fannie, Lehman, Merrill), billions of borrowed dollars a month spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
- McCain is on record as saying "I am not an expert on Wall St., I am not an expert on some of this stuff", as well as "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." (I love and miss Tim Russert, may he rest in peace)
- This week Wall St. suffered its worst losses since the days following 9/11
- It's difficult for McCain to understand "tough times". He's insulated from them by 7 homes and his wife's millions.
The crisis:
McCain doesn't know much about the economy, according to him:
Barack on confronting the economic crisis:
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Drill Baby Drill! - What for?
The debate over drilling for oil offshore and in Alaska has become increasingly visible since McCain selected Palin as his running mate. In her year as Governor she's persistently advocated for drilling both in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore. "Drill now to make these United States safer and more energy independent" is something we've heard her say nearly as often as "I told the Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere". Both statements are of course misleading, if not patently false.
While it is true that Alaska's oil and natural gas reserves are significant, the argument that authorizing drilling in those areas now will make gas cheaper and us safer anytime in the near future is simply off-base. George Bush's own energy department's official position regarding offshore drilling is that we would not see a drop of oil from it until 2017. So, were drilling to begin today, we would not see any additional oil supplies for at least 9 years. The amazing thing is that Palin has admitted this point in the past but continues to speak of drilling as a legitimate energy alternative that will lower prices at the pump for Americans who are hurting now. She speaks of "feeding our hungry markets" when she knows that precisely zero sustenance is to be found in AK and offshore for perhaps a generation.
So whether Palin's statements are misleading or manipulative or just false, I think I can speak for most Americans and say, please stop. Please stop lying to us. Please stop leading us in the wrong direction. It's so obvious that we need to be moving away from oil dependence altogether, not towards it. Talk to us about alternative energies and how we can create clean energies that don't destroy the global environment. And if you decided one day that human activity is contributing to global warming, talk to us about how we can address that too. Just please, for now, stop lying.
Obama's stance on the issue is that offshore drilling is not a legitimate option for the reasons noted above. Instead, he would tax the record profits of oil companies and redistribute that tax money back to middle class families (95% of US families would qualify). In a populist pitch, he is also ready to issue a second round of tax rebates to ease the hurt that people are feeling at the pumps. Lastly, he would investigate possible fraud and market manipulation in the oil and gas industries. Those seem to be three logical steps that could actually give Americans some immediate relief.
Thomas Friedman's Op-ed from 9/13:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Accompanying Video:
Drill Baby Drill!
Palin Lying in LaLaLand:
Barack on Drilling:
While it is true that Alaska's oil and natural gas reserves are significant, the argument that authorizing drilling in those areas now will make gas cheaper and us safer anytime in the near future is simply off-base. George Bush's own energy department's official position regarding offshore drilling is that we would not see a drop of oil from it until 2017. So, were drilling to begin today, we would not see any additional oil supplies for at least 9 years. The amazing thing is that Palin has admitted this point in the past but continues to speak of drilling as a legitimate energy alternative that will lower prices at the pump for Americans who are hurting now. She speaks of "feeding our hungry markets" when she knows that precisely zero sustenance is to be found in AK and offshore for perhaps a generation.
So whether Palin's statements are misleading or manipulative or just false, I think I can speak for most Americans and say, please stop. Please stop lying to us. Please stop leading us in the wrong direction. It's so obvious that we need to be moving away from oil dependence altogether, not towards it. Talk to us about alternative energies and how we can create clean energies that don't destroy the global environment. And if you decided one day that human activity is contributing to global warming, talk to us about how we can address that too. Just please, for now, stop lying.
Obama's stance on the issue is that offshore drilling is not a legitimate option for the reasons noted above. Instead, he would tax the record profits of oil companies and redistribute that tax money back to middle class families (95% of US families would qualify). In a populist pitch, he is also ready to issue a second round of tax rebates to ease the hurt that people are feeling at the pumps. Lastly, he would investigate possible fraud and market manipulation in the oil and gas industries. Those seem to be three logical steps that could actually give Americans some immediate relief.
Thomas Friedman's Op-ed from 9/13:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Accompanying Video:
Drill Baby Drill!
Palin Lying in LaLaLand:
Barack on Drilling:
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Palin's Social Beliefs
Quick entry here. Just wanted to make a short list of Palin's social beliefs, as stated by her in the surprisingly revealing interview conducted by ABC's Charles Gibson. It was the first substantive interview with Palin since her nomination. I discuss how the McCain camp has guarded Palin in a previous post.
Here is a Youtube link to the interview:
Other highlights:
Here is a Youtube link to the interview:
- Reverse Roe v. Wade. Abortion only in cases in which the woman's life is in danger. No abortion in cases of rape or incest. "A personal issue for so many women and men across America... A culture of life is best for America."
- No embryonic stem cell research. "Creating an embryo and then destroying it is not something I support."
- No ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. "I am a life-long member of the NRA... It's going to be the bad guys, Charlie, who've got the guns, not law abiding citizens."
- Unable or unwilling to state whether homosexuality is genetic or learned. "I am not going to judge somebody on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic." Kinda pissed Charlie-boy didn't push her harder on this one.
- Sexism is an irrelevant subject in America today.
Other highlights:
- Conversation between Charlie and Sarah regarding her banning books in a public library. She claims to have never banned a book.
- Trooper Gate - Todd Palin is being subpeonaed regarding the firing of a State Trooper who divorced Palin's sister. She claims not to have intervened in the firing. Others have stated that Palin sent emails to the authorities involved demanding that he be fired for smearing the "first family's" name.
Voter Protection
Playing political hardball and lying are different acts. One is legitimate while the other is morally reprehensible. They need to be treated differently.
We tolerate attack ads that offer claims which are supported by historically documented facts. If McCain puts out an ad that calls attention to the fact that Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq began before Obama was voting on national security issues, we voters should and would accept it as a legitimate political maneuver. Some may call such an ad "negative" and encourage McCain to offer reasons why we should vote for him rather than reasons not to vote for his opponent, but most voters would simply appreciate being made aware of the facts.
What reasonable citizens will never accept is being lied to. Whether its a quote taken out of context, the manipulation of historical information, or just a flat out lie with no factual basis, reasonable Americans will not tolerate it (See: Reactions of many Republicans and Independents to the revelations that at least two of McCain's recent ads propagate false information).
Unfortunately, it is difficult for the average American to discriminate between the truthful statements and the lies he is fed by our media. This is why I would support the creation of an independent agency which would hold veto power over the content of proposed political advertisements. The agency could also impose monetary penalties on the campaign which attempted to spread false claims. We don't let corporations propagate falsehoods over the radio or television, why do we let politicians? A system of voter protection is desperately needed.
The agency would function like a front-end FactCheck.org. The content of the ad would be reviewed for factual accuracy and if it passed scrutiny, would be aired at the time chosen by its creators. If the ad contained content which was not supported by historical documentation, it would not be aired and the submitting campaign could be subjected to monetary penalties.
Lincoln Chafee and others in the Senate have become increasingly vocal about the 'truth deficit' in our federal politics. In my opinion, as long as Carl Rove's proteges are running the campaigns of Presidential candidates we will not see real reform in this area. An independent body must be created to hold campaigns accountable for the messages they spread.
Candidates simply can't be given carte blanche during election time. They must act within the bounds of history and a version of reality that is based on hard facts. No candidate should have to decide between running an ethical campaign and running a winning campaign that costs him his integrity.
McCain on TheView defending his manipulation of Obama's use of the common phrase "lipstick on a pig" for political gain:
-
"Pro-truth" Youtube montage showing a plethora of false claims used by the McCain camp in 2008:
We tolerate attack ads that offer claims which are supported by historically documented facts. If McCain puts out an ad that calls attention to the fact that Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq began before Obama was voting on national security issues, we voters should and would accept it as a legitimate political maneuver. Some may call such an ad "negative" and encourage McCain to offer reasons why we should vote for him rather than reasons not to vote for his opponent, but most voters would simply appreciate being made aware of the facts.
What reasonable citizens will never accept is being lied to. Whether its a quote taken out of context, the manipulation of historical information, or just a flat out lie with no factual basis, reasonable Americans will not tolerate it (See: Reactions of many Republicans and Independents to the revelations that at least two of McCain's recent ads propagate false information).
Unfortunately, it is difficult for the average American to discriminate between the truthful statements and the lies he is fed by our media. This is why I would support the creation of an independent agency which would hold veto power over the content of proposed political advertisements. The agency could also impose monetary penalties on the campaign which attempted to spread false claims. We don't let corporations propagate falsehoods over the radio or television, why do we let politicians? A system of voter protection is desperately needed.
The agency would function like a front-end FactCheck.org. The content of the ad would be reviewed for factual accuracy and if it passed scrutiny, would be aired at the time chosen by its creators. If the ad contained content which was not supported by historical documentation, it would not be aired and the submitting campaign could be subjected to monetary penalties.
Lincoln Chafee and others in the Senate have become increasingly vocal about the 'truth deficit' in our federal politics. In my opinion, as long as Carl Rove's proteges are running the campaigns of Presidential candidates we will not see real reform in this area. An independent body must be created to hold campaigns accountable for the messages they spread.
Candidates simply can't be given carte blanche during election time. They must act within the bounds of history and a version of reality that is based on hard facts. No candidate should have to decide between running an ethical campaign and running a winning campaign that costs him his integrity.
McCain on TheView defending his manipulation of Obama's use of the common phrase "lipstick on a pig" for political gain:
-
"Pro-truth" Youtube montage showing a plethora of false claims used by the McCain camp in 2008:
Monday, September 8, 2008
Palin's Substance
The McCain camp hasn't allowed Sarah Palin to answer a single question from the media since her nomination. Nevertheless (and possibly as a result), her personal story and charisma have revitalized the GOP over the past week. Her speech at the RNC received rave reviews from both liberal and conservative commentators who commended her for hitting "all the right notes" in her introduction to the nation. It even appears now that "the speech" was so dead-on in its message that it has propelled McCain ahead of Obama for the popular vote, according to CNN's "Poll of Polls".
And who doesn't love a great political speech? We chuckle with each witty quip and jab at the opposition. Some of us clap, some of us hoot and holler, and plenty of us Americans go into chants of USA when the speaker's voice hits a crescendo and an emphatic point is made.
But you know, as much as we value a good speech, we should value the knowledge and vision of a leader more. We should value the substance of a person over the style. Right now, in 2008, American citizens have a crucial responsibility; to vote for those individuals who are capable of solving out country's crises.
How do we, the voters, tell who will be capable of addressing the issues that loom over the '08 Presidential race? We look to their records first, and then we listen. We listen to their answers to tough questions and we see how they either match-up with or conflict with our viewpoints. That's how we decide who to vote for.
So, a news flash for those managing the McCain campaign: The Vice President of the United States becomes President of the United States if the Presdient dies or is otherwise unable to continue serving as Commander in Chief. The Vice President is therefore a rather important post. Given McCain's age (72) and the average life expectancy of American males (75.2), we'd really like to hear Sarah Palin's solutions to our nation's problems. The sooner the better, because we messed up pretty badly the last two times and we want to be sure to get it right in '08.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Bristol's Right to Choose
Earlier this week Governor Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter Bristol's pregnancy fell under the national spotlight. The McCain camp's official position is that they were aware of the pregnancy before selecting Palin and considered Bristol's personal life to be outside the bounds of electoral politics; off-limits to the media and hence a non-factor in November. The fact that McCain is anti-abortion and in favor of making that personal decision a matter of state discretion has yet to be picked up on by the visionaries of mainstream news media.
But in retrospect, the McCain camp may have been a step ahead of the game by anticipating the media attention and using it to build sympathy for Palin before her RNC address. Conservative commentators made the media's coverage of Bristol's predicament a central talking point. McCain's spokespeople went out in full force to denounce the media's use of the gender card. Palin topped it off with a direct jab at the media in her acceptance speech. Eh, I'm probably giving them too much credit.
Either way, let's say they knew all about the pregnancy. They alerted McCain and through his own unique cost-benefit analysis The Maverick decided to go with her. With that choice comes a set of new realities for his campaign. One new reality that seems particularly relevant is that Palin, a devout Evangelical, stated in an '06 gubernatorial debate that she opposes abortion even in cases of pregnancies caused by rape. (Read, Palin is dangling off the pro-life edge of the abortion discourse that has raged in this country since Roe v. Wade and seems to surface with renewed strength around election time. Her aggressive pro-life posture is attractive to the Evangelical voting base that elected Bush in 2000 and 2004 but is still hesitant to throw its full weight behind McCain. The GOP VP vetting team put a huge check mark with a halo hovering above it in the row labeled "Views on Abortion" on their list: Palin - Pros and Cons).
And it's Palin's staunch opposition to a woman's right to choose that must make her statement regarding Bristol's decision to keep her child so disheartening for the logically sound, "Can't we get back to the pre-Bush days" Republican who's looking for some straight talk. Here's Sarah and Todd Palin's official statement from September 1st:
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her
grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and
even prouder to become grandparents."
Proud of Bristol's decision! I think John Stewart put it best when he told Newt Gingrich that, "What she is in essence saying is 'Respect my family's ability to make this decision, and elect me so that I can keep your family from having the same opportunity'."
It's Palin's bold hypocrisy on the issue which should be where Stewart tried to put it; under the media's microscope. Because if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that four more years of executive level double-talk is the last thing this country needs.
But in retrospect, the McCain camp may have been a step ahead of the game by anticipating the media attention and using it to build sympathy for Palin before her RNC address. Conservative commentators made the media's coverage of Bristol's predicament a central talking point. McCain's spokespeople went out in full force to denounce the media's use of the gender card. Palin topped it off with a direct jab at the media in her acceptance speech. Eh, I'm probably giving them too much credit.
Either way, let's say they knew all about the pregnancy. They alerted McCain and through his own unique cost-benefit analysis The Maverick decided to go with her. With that choice comes a set of new realities for his campaign. One new reality that seems particularly relevant is that Palin, a devout Evangelical, stated in an '06 gubernatorial debate that she opposes abortion even in cases of pregnancies caused by rape. (Read, Palin is dangling off the pro-life edge of the abortion discourse that has raged in this country since Roe v. Wade and seems to surface with renewed strength around election time. Her aggressive pro-life posture is attractive to the Evangelical voting base that elected Bush in 2000 and 2004 but is still hesitant to throw its full weight behind McCain. The GOP VP vetting team put a huge check mark with a halo hovering above it in the row labeled "Views on Abortion" on their list: Palin - Pros and Cons).
And it's Palin's staunch opposition to a woman's right to choose that must make her statement regarding Bristol's decision to keep her child so disheartening for the logically sound, "Can't we get back to the pre-Bush days" Republican who's looking for some straight talk. Here's Sarah and Todd Palin's official statement from September 1st:
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her
grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and
even prouder to become grandparents."
Proud of Bristol's decision! I think John Stewart put it best when he told Newt Gingrich that, "What she is in essence saying is 'Respect my family's ability to make this decision, and elect me so that I can keep your family from having the same opportunity'."
It's Palin's bold hypocrisy on the issue which should be where Stewart tried to put it; under the media's microscope. Because if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that four more years of executive level double-talk is the last thing this country needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
