Proportionaility in War

1,100 dead Palestinians. More than 40% are women and children under the age of 18. That is 450 to 500 dead Palestinian women and children in 21 days of fighting.

13 dead Israelis.

In the laws governing acts of war, there exists a principle of proportionality, created in adherence to universally recognized principles of morality. This law dictates that offensive military actions should be proportional to the acts which they are being launched in response to. Violations of this law constitute war crimes. Failing to take adequate steps to avoid civilian casualties in theaters of war also constitutes a war crime.

Israel has come under intense criticism from various media outlets in the States and elsewhere for their unrelenting attacks in Gaza; not because they are seeking to destroy an elected government, but because they have slaughtered so many civilians. It's been well documented that citizens of Gaza have no way of escaping the area. This was the case before the Israeli offensive began: Gaza is and has been the largest prison in the world, offering no chance of escape either into the State of Israel or into Egypt. Israel has turned it into, without exaggeration, a fiery prison of death.

1,100 : 13 is disproportional. 40% civilian casualties is unacceptable from a moral perspective.

I have family in Tel Aviv. I have been to Israel and was amazed by the country's beauty and by the kindness of its people. I do not want any harm to come to Israel, whether it be from Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon. But I can not passively accept this slaughtering of a trapped civilians population. I hope that Barack shows himself to be man of principles and a man of the law in condemning these attacks and possibly altering our policy of tacit acceptance of all Israeli military action.

Israel, Diplomacy and Genocide

Israel has rebuffed Hamas' offer to negotiate diplomatically in this the 9th day of armed conflict in Gaza. By refusing to meet with Hamas representatives, Israel is saying that it can accomplish its goal of eliminating rocket attacks through the use of force. Of course, even though Hamas won the most recent round of elections in Gaza, Israel and the US consider it to be a terrorist group that cannot be negotiated with. But does that mean that war is a practical long-term solution for southern Israel and its citizens?

In my opinion this has and always will be a political conflict. That is, unless Israel commits genocide. If Israel kills a large enough percentage of living Palestinians through depriving the people of Gaza of electricity, food, water, fuel and medical supplies while using military violence, it may accomplish complete and uncontested control of the land it claims rights to. And is this result so far fetched? Is it such a stretch to imagine Israel purposefully killing thousands and tens of thousands of Palestinians through direct and indirect means? It frithens and saddens me to say that when I was in Israel I heard and saw more evidence of this being possible than of it being impossible. I did not go near Gaza as there were rockets being fired into the surrounding area at the time, but I still heard fearful Israelis use phrases laced with hate and disrespect when describing their neighbors. I heard Israeli soldiers ask why they don't just annihilate the "dogs" and still others say that they are nuclear state for a reason...

I am yet to hear an Israeli spokesperson speak about the horrors of the war that Israel is perpetrating. I am yet to hear a major military force, be it the US or another militarized nation, speak out in defense of the innocents being slaughtered. What I have heard is the Israeli government declaring its intentions to destroy Hamas' infrastructure, and how that process will be "messy" and "drawn out". I have heard that Israel's pursuit of Hamas and its armed supporters will be "relentless".

We assume that genocide in Palestine could never happen because of the amount of media coverage in present day Israel. But who is going to stop Israel's generals? The US? When in our 232 year history have we ever defended against the loss of innocent lives when it was politically inconvenient and expensive to do so? By defending the Palestinians in the case of genocide we would destroy our ties with a militarized state that we have systematically built up the strength of over the past 60 years. Not a chance in hell.

That is, unless Obama is different. Unless Obama is a man of integrity and of principles. A sympathetic and yet powerful new leader who can lead us into an era of compassion and respect for human rights, when war is no longer accepted as anything less than a last option and peace is sought vigorously.

Obama's Silence

Israel sent ground troops into Gaza today. The infantry will be operating on terrain that has been leveled by a week of naval and air strikes. The stated objective of this now 8 day old offensive is to destroy the infrastructure of Hamas and thereby eliminate its capacity to launch rockets into southern Israel. From the perspective of Palestinian citizens, many of whom have seen their communities destroyed and livelihoods threatened over the past week, the offensive is an attempt to oust an elected governmental body through indiscriminate violence. The New York Times has reported 430 Palestinian and 4 Israeli deaths thus far.

This is a one-sided conflict. Israel controls the supplies of water, food, electricity, medical and humanitarian aid flowing into Palestine. The Israeli state is not threatened by the haphazard firing of makeshift rockets, and neither are its citizens so long as they are outside the short range of the rockets. Israel's response has been disproportionate and could be classified as a war crime.

Barack Obama is in not yet in a position to change the US policy towards Israel with regard to this conflict, but soon he will be. In 17 days he will have no excuse for silence. When he assumes the mantle of the Presidency, his silence will equal acquiescence. That passive acceptance will be unacceptable to me from a human rights perspective and from the perspective of a self-interested American. When Israel attacks Palestine with US supplied armaments and US made planes, Muslims across the world burn our flag along with Israel's. And when Muslims evaluate Obama, as a man and as a leader, they will look at how he handles our military partnership with Israel during this conflict. This is Obama's chance to show the Islamic world that he is a different type of American, the type who truly values human life and will defend it regardless of considerations of political convenience.

Obama's National Security Team

TPM: Obama to Announce National Security Team at 10:40am EST

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/11/obama_turns_to_friends_foes_fo.php

Tangible Change

Obama Appointments

Barack's image as a reformer is being called into question this week following a number of major administration appointments. Hillary Clinton will be our Secretary of State. Timothy Geithner (Treasury Secretary), Lawrence Summers (White House Economic Adviser), and Peter Orszag (Budget Director), who are the most prominent proteges of Robert Rubin, will lead us through the economic hardships that await Barack in January. Eric Holder Jr. will be charged with the task of restoring honor to the DOJ as our next Attorney General. And today the NYTimes reports that Defense Secretary Gates will retain his position for at least one year following inauguration.

The decision to keep Gates on-board shows Barack's commitment to bipartisanship but also his political bravery. Gates is regarded as a pragmatist who has cleaned up the Pentagon since Rumsfeld's resignation, and although he has overseen the last two years of the war in Iraq, he has also been sharply critical of the Bush Administration's handling of military operations there. He is favor of drawing down troops when possible. He also does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate.

The obvious downside of retaining Gates is that it tarnishes Barack's image as a force for sweeping change to our foreign and military policies. But perhaps just as importantly it will give Barack's critics and skeptics reason to sound the "he's a great speaker but is he really a man of action" alarm. There are certainly other individuals that Barack could have appointed to that critical national security post who would represent the type of dramatic policy shift he advocated during the primary and general elections.

And what is to be said of the appointment of Hillary to be our nation's leading diplomat? Is Barack bringing her in to eliminate her as a political opponent in 2012? Or does he believe that she is the best negotiator that we have to offer? The cliche is true in this case that only time will tell, but it does bother me that while the two former rivals' domestic platforms were similar, Hillary scolded Barack whenever she could for his willingness to engage our supposed "enemies" in political dialogue. We should all hope that they settled those differences during their meeting last week and are ready to work as a unit, with Hillary's words carrying the authority of the Presidency in diplomatic settings.

Whether we are evaluating Hillary or Gates or some of the leaders of former President Clinton's administration that Barack is getting ready to appoint, the same question must be asked: Are they willing to carry out Barack's vision? If they are, we can rest assured that we will see the type of drastic change that we voted for. If they are not ready to be agents of reform, we may all have reason to worry.

Please let me know what you think. Post your comments below.

King's Dream Fulfilled?

Was the election of Barack Obama the fulfillment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Dream"? Let's recall his words and remind ourselves of how far we've come but also of how much work we have ahead of ourselves:

Obama's Victory Speech in Chicago

John McCain agrees and disgrees with you

Western Pennsylvanian's, I think you're all pieces of trash! And I agree with you that you disagree with me that I disagree with terrorist Barack Obama that you are Patriotic and God Loving and Americans! Thanks to Ben Steinberg in NYC for sending this one along:

Robo-calls

John McCain's fear mongering hit a new depressing low with his sadistic new program of robo-calling undecided voters. The frightening voice on the other line tells those unfortunate enough to answer that Obama works with terrorists to undermine the American government through violent means. John McCain, not his campaign, should be roasted over flames of shame for this assault on our national conscience. Joe Biden is livid, Chris Matthew is beside himself, and people full of Mc-hatred, prejudices and anger are lapping it up. Watch the videos below and let me know what you think. For me, acts of transparent fear-mongering can not be tolerated in our country. It is time for concerned Americans to vocalize their concerns with this development, which can only distract us from our numerous crises and spread unfounded suspicion of our fellow Americans.


Joe Biden:



The Straight-Talk Express:



Chris Matthews:

Nerd for President!

Americans have often been told that we are capable of accomplishing "anything we put our minds to". The short history of our nation is a testament to the truth of that statement. We have fostered intellectualism as an engine for economic growth by investing in science, the arts and our educational institutions. Great thinkers have emerged to lead us through dark periods of lesser humanity into times of opportunity and equality. We look at a man like Martin Luther King Jr. in awe but also with a sense of pride. We are proud that such a powerful force for good grew out of our society, and that we share a type of collective identity with him and other great men and women of the past.

And yet when we are voting for the President we seem to value the power of the mind less than we should. This is the man who we are trusting with our money, our physical safety, our reputation and our future! It's unthinkable to me that we would dismiss a candidate, as some have dismissed Obama, because he is too articulate or too intellectual. I don't care that he can't connect with uneducated people if he represents their interests in office. What I care about is that he can persuade other heads of state to work with us. I care that he can develop diplomacy with the Theocrats of Tehran. I care deeply that he has a vision for sorting out the healthcare and education deficiencies in our country. We should seek out brilliant Americans who can do these things and bring them into leadership roles immediately.

I support Obama in this election because he is more intelligent than his opponent. He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a Constitutional Law Professor. He was a civil rights lawyer. He is a very smart man. His vocabulary is expansive and it enhances his ability to speak eloquently and in complete, logically connected sentences. I value those abilities and I think that educated people around the world do as well.

Just take a look at this clip and see what I mean. I could've taken any 5 minute segment, but this one clearly displays Obama's intellectual dominance over McCain:



Let's elect someone who's smarter than we are and see how it goes for 4 years.

Pursuit of Power

In this election we have two candidates who are pursing different policies and visions for our country, but we also have two individuals who are employing contrasting methods in their pursuit of power.

Every human being seeks to both understand and influence the world he lives in, whether through politics or another medium. Obama and McCain are no different. But if we associate, as writer George Sotos has, the pursuit of knowledge with the cognitive function of the mind and the pursuit of influence with the manipulative function, we can detect a valid and crucial distinction between the campaigns and the candidates running them.

Obama’s campaign has been guilty of subtle “untruths”, such as using quotes out of context, but in my opinion, which is all this entry is, Obama has conducted a campaign which reflects a dedicated pursuit of knowledge and a desire to inform the American people about the issues they face. He seems to me to be genuinely interested in educating the public so that we may be able to steer our government and our lives in a positive direction. He has aspirations to shape America and world events, as each President and Presidential hopeful must, but he is a cognitive thinker first and works within the bounds of logical connections between facts and events.

McCain, on the other hand, has engaged in a form of electoral politics dominated by the manipulative function. He has identified, time and time again, the desires of the electorate, and then has sought to shape the facts so that they correspond to those desires. Outcome first, facts second.

This technique was on display most recently this past week as he attempted to position himself as the Maverick crusader who saved the economy. He identified the desire of the American people for economic stability (in this case via a 700 billion dollar injection from the Treasury), and then suspended his campaign and launched a media blitz in an attempt to contort the facts regarding how the bill was passed. His objective was to make it seem as though he led Congress through the process of getting the bill passed, when in fact his position on the legislation was ambiguous throughout.

The technique backfired badly. In the House, his own party rejected the proposal and in the process, made a mockery of McCain surrogates who appeared on talk shows before the vote to proclaim another victory in vision and leadership for the 72 year old.

So, will this latest failure of Carl Rove style, “do anything to win” politics persuade McCain and future Republican nominees to focus on the facts first and the potential influence second? Not a chance! But at the very least it gives Obama more ammunition on the economy while basically wiping out McCain’s illusory, “pro-regulation” arsenal. Perceptive voters may also see in the episode an example of McCain’s erratic governing style and of Obama’s calm under pressure.

Also, not to be overlooked, we now know that McCain, in his old age, is completely incapable of multi-tasking.

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

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.

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:

1. McCain has been avidly anti-regulation ("I am always for less regulation" - WSJ in March) and anti-oversight for 20+ years
2. McCain has supported GOP economic policy over the past eight years
3. McCain has been an influential member of the party that over eight years has taken our thriving economy and driven it into recession
4. McCain has stated countless times (see video below) that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong", and CONTINUES TO DO SO!
   
5. (But the McCain camp just released an ad saying that the economy is in crisis. Contradictory, two-faced and typical.)
   
6. 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.
   
7. 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)
8. This week Wall St. suffered its worst losses since the days following 9/11
9. 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:

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:

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:

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.

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.