Although some journalists say privately they are censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they're piling on, pundits on the right are jumping ship. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says Palin "just seems out of her league." National Review Editor Rich Lowry called her performance "dreadful." Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher described the interview as a "train wreck." Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker urged Palin to quit the race, saying: "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
The interview is drawing extraordinary attention because of the McCain campaign's calculated decision to shield Palin from reporters. No vice presidential nominee in modern history has been this inaccessible to the media, reinforcing the perception that she can't hit major-league pitching.
Sorry Howard, you're pulling your punches here. When Tina Fey can get pant-wetting guffaws by quoting the first part of the Palin-Couric interview verbatim, it's reported that Palin can only name 1 Supreme Court decision (do Alaskan public schools not offer any courses in US history or civics?) and even you are expecting the rest of Palin's interview will provide more fuel for the fire, it's quite obvious that Palin isn't even in the minors - she's in the T-ball league (and she has a pretty crappy batting average there).
So, while the Republicans and McCain's campaign accused Obama and Democrats of putting "politics ahead of country," 133 Republicans voted against the bail-out. Why did these "Country First" Republicans voted against the bail-out? Well, according to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), these "Country Firsters" Republicans who planned on an AYE vote for the sake of the country had no choice but to change their vote because Nancy Pelosi forced them to:
"I do believe that the vote could have succeeded," Boehner said in a news conference. "But the speaker had to give a partisan speech ... that poisoned our caucus."
When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?
It’s a staggering figure and many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing a very informed debate on all sides of this issue here today. I’m proud of the debate.
$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton’s surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.
They claim to be free-market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.
Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.
Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, many good things in our economy. But in this case, in this unbridled form, as encouraged and supported by the Republicans — some Republicans, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. And it is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to see us, just about a week and a half ago. It seems like an eternity, doesn’t it? So much has happened. The news was so bad. They described a very dismal situation.
Pelosi, for the record, voted AYE, as did 139 other Democrats and 65 Republicans. In other words, according to Boehner, Eric Cantor (R-VA) and the McCain campaign, Republicans by and large are so petty that they'd rather completely destroy the economy and hurt this country and its citizens rather than vote the same way as Nancy Pelosi. So which country is it that Republicans are putting first?
I don't know how I managed to miss the news about someone spraying an irritant to hurt congregants of a Dayton area Mosque, but that I did. Worshippers were praying at the Mosque to mark the final days of Ramadan, the Muslim Holy month and any attack on a Mosque at that time is something akin to attacking a synagogue during Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur, or attacking a Church at Christmas or Easter. Of course, attacking a house of worship - any house of worship, just because you do not share the views of another religion is something I'm pretty sure G-d would find to be an egregious offence (to say the least).
Many people are now questioning whether a hatefilled DVD that's been played on FOX and distributed through local newspapers may have contributed to escalating anti-Islamic rhetoric as well as this attack. Ya think? The DVD, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", is a hateful piece of shite that could only have been put together by people who are, obviously, easily threatened by those who don't suscribe to the developers narrow-minded politico-religious views. Let's be honest, there's only one reason some people are so easily threatened by the mere existence people subscribing to the views of another religion: they're very weak in their own faith.
I can not find words adequate to express my utter disgust at the hate-mongering behing this DVD and the actions people appear to be taking against an entire religion. The so-called Religious Right needs to remove their rose-colored glassed take a good hard look at itself and realize that when they rail against "Islamofascists" they are railing against themselves. In principle, the extremist fundamentalist/orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims are essentially the same. While (in this century) there have not been as many attacks and acts of terror committed in the name of Christianity (or Judaism) as there have been in the name of Islam, the hate-filled rhetoric, insistance that secular law match fundamentalist/orthodox "biblical" law and, now, physical attacks are just a sign that the Christofascists are scaling up and will eventually match the fervor of the Islamofascists overseas.
I feel the need to remind you "Christians" who think this hate-mongering DVD or the resultant attack on the Mosque in Dayton are acceptable of Matthew 6:5:
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
To any Jews who are not offended by this hate-mongering, on this Erev Rosh Hashana, I say shame on you. We've been there (heck, to a certain extent, we're still there) so it is ourduty to support other "strangers" in our communities.
According to the Associate Press, while McCain didn't say a dang thing during the photo-op meeting that required he put the election on hold and rush to DC for face-to-face negotiations of the bail-out crisis, he steered the development of the current plan by phone
After making a dramatic entrance on Capitol Hill Thursday to be part of the bailout negotiations, McCain stayed away Saturday as lawmakers inched toward an agreement. He made phone calls to the White House and GOP leaders from his suburban condominium and later at campaign headquarters.
Aides said that in addition to Bush, McCain spoke with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and about a dozen influential Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rep. Eric Cantor, a leader of a House GOP effort to craft an alternative plan.
According to McCain senior strategist Mark Salter, the Senator already used the dramatics of pretending to put the country first by pretending to put his campaign on hold and now prefers to openly interject Presidential politics "can effectively do what he needs to do by phone."
It's a rainy Sunday morning in the Cranky household today. The D-man is upstairs sleeping in after a restless night of ear problems, Kid Dynamite is curled up on the couch and I'm a drinking some joe while reading this morning's Inky featuring an Op-Ed against Same Sex Marriage. While this piece has the same chorus and refrain it is, according to its author, different in that he is a liberal democrat which, ostensibly, means that it's OK for him to support something discriminatory because he's not a bigot. He is David Blankenhorn and since he studied the history and anthropology of marriage, his opinion matters even though he is disregarding the fact that, up until recently, religion was the dominating force in what would be acceptable with regard to marriage and sexuality (at least in public). The core of Blankenhorn's argument is this:
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood - biological, social and legal - into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
As I've said in the past (multiple times, in fact), this implies that a "traditional family" (defined as a family headed up by a married couple limited to that comprised by one man and one woman) is, by default, a superior family "form" just by the nature of the arrangement. While I, personally, do believe that the ideal family is comprised by a man and a woman in a stable, committed, monogamous relationship raising their children in a warm, secure, positive and nurturing environment, I am under no illusion that any marriage based on a "traditional" heterosexual relationship meets my definition of ideal (or even acceptable) purely based on the fact the family is headed up by a heterosexual couple. "Traditional" is no guarantee of appropriate involvement and support for a child from both his/her father and mother nor is is any more of a guarantee that a child's parents will really be there to love and support each other or the child or that, even in the event they don't stay together to support one another, they will do the right thing by all of their child(ren).
Blankenhorn makes all kinds of assumptions, about an institution he admits is evolving, that are not accurate today, have not been completely accurate for some time and may not have always been accurate in the good old days of yore. Unfortunately for Blankenhorn's argument (and society): children are born out of wedlock to parents who may or may not get married; marriages have a high divorce rate even when there are children involved; and "staying together" does not mean the marriage is by any means happy or healthy for the parents or their children. He also brings up this old chestnut:
In 2002 - just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so - a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."
For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right.
followed by an assertion that children of gay couples will be denied their birthright to know and have a relationship with their biological parents which are, by default (one can only assume based on the emphasis Blankenhorn places on this imperative), superior to adoptive parents who are merely poor surrogates raising someone else's child. He may take issue with my pointing out this error because he undermines his argument by bringing up adoption himself:
Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Be careful how you answer. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and good will. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
I have to be honest, I don't know where to start with the above. In my mind I envision these words coming out of the mouth of a well-intentioned but not really clear-minded adolescent girl (or Elisabeth Hasselback). First off, adoption doesn't appear to be available for all children whose "natural" parents can't/won't raise them - we've got lots of kids (healthy and not) in foster care here in the US. Blankenhorn also seems to go off on some sort of irrational tangent that, in voting to approve SSM, the next step is to encode opinions about how many children a couple should be allowed to have (heck, why not age difference between children while we're at it?). The only real importance of biological ties are that they provide "family medical history" which can be very helpful for a person. If you think that being raised by you biological parents routinely gives one a substantive edge in this matter, think again. From my own experience in clinical research, I can tell you that few people are really that aware of their family medical history, much of the time they become of that information after they've been diagnosed with a disorder.
Limiting marriage to one man and one woman has not increased the stability of marriage as an instution, nor does it have an impact on the sanctity or stability of individual marriages. What it does do is undermine the stability of families - families that include children both biological and adopted, who desire to have the same rights and protections under the law that are guaranteed by the US Consititution. Blankenhorn actually acknowledges this but then goes back to the injury to a child's birth-right. Children adopted in "traditional" marriages also would have this terrible denial to their birth-right, but Blankenhorn doesn't seem to mind that their adoption is celebrated as a good thing as he does for children of gay couples.
“We need leadership, not a photo op” said Harry Reid
and
“The threats to Americans, and their homes, savings and retirements, is not a partisan problem, and it won’t be fixed with a partisan approach” said Mitch McConnell
When John McCain finally made it to the palace Capitol he met with lesser nobles and then, with his trusty side-kick Sir Senator Lindsey Graham, he burst into the knights' luncheon and instead of stopping for some tasty Tex-Mex, he rose in front of the knights who had made some progress towards an agreement and spoke
"I appreciate what you've done here, but I'm not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal," McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. "Just like Iraq, I'm not afraid to go it alone if I need to."
and
"You all put me on the hook for $700 billion"
The place erupted in chaos as the knights realized they may have been duped by those in league with the dark knight (and I don't mean Heath Ledger) whose goal was to have another succeed the lame-duck President trusted leader King George. Nobly, our hero went on to meet with King George and the dreaded dark knight at the White House.
"What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?"
he asked again, and again, and our hero said nothing. Our hero, proud he had singlehandedly, foiled any plans of the various fractions of the land coming to a mutual agreement. Then he stood, walked toward the door, shook hands with the Marines and left.
From Pam's, proof positive that Viet Nam War-Hero & former POW Presidential Candidate John McCain has a truly McShameful voting record when it comes veterans of his own war's sequel
During the debate last night, McCain indicated that if he were to limit government spending, he would not spend a dime on anything but "defense, veteran affairs and entitlement program". This statement is interesting for 2 reasons: (1) McCain has no intention whatsover to help the middle class, working poor or anyone who is not rich obtain access to healthcare or tax relief and (2) McCain has a truly reprehensible voting record when it comes to veterans' affairs. From One Pissed Off Veteran, McCain's support for our friend, the American Veteran, is evidenced as follows:
August 2001 -- McCain votes against increasing the amount of cash available for veterans' medical care
March 2004 -- McCain votes against creating a reserve fund for veterans' medical care
March 2006 -- McCain votes against increasing veterans' medical services funding
May 2006 -- McCain votes against additional funding to the VA for health care facilities
September 2007 -- McCain votes against the Webb Amendment, which would have provided for adequate periods of rest between deployments to Iraq
Despite his atrocious voting record, McCain still tells people that as a former POW (I know, something he rarely uses for political purposes), he knows better than most what is best for our soldiers not only during combat, but how to help them when they're finally home:
MCCAIN: Jim, when I came home from prison, I saw our veterans being very badly treated, and it made me sad. And I embarked on an effort to resolve the POW-MIA issue, which we did in a bipartisan fashion, and then I worked on normalization of relations between our two countries so that our veterans could come all the way home.
I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.
Why McCain has the support of a majority of veterans is beyond me. From McCain's statement above, one can only surmise that McCain is indicating that it will be his transformation from Senator to POTUS that will miraculously make him someone who heals veterans instead of someone who hurts them. Either that or or McCain really is saying that the best way to heal the wounds of war is to ensure that those veterans who aren't lucky enough to be discharged dead are helped to find a speedy resolution for all that ails them.
The only thing in tonight's debate that was funnier than John McCain indicating her knew Pakistan was a failed state when he didn't know the US economy was in the crapper was the way he nailed Sarah "No More OK, some Earmarks" Palin's earmark.
During tonight's campaign:
MCCAIN: Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It's completely out of control. It's gone -- we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.
We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the -- the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it's a gateway. It's a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption.
And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending.
You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.
As president of the United States, I want to assure you, I've got a pen. This one's kind of old. I've got a pen, and I'm going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names.
Now, Senator Obama, you wanted to know one of the differences. a million dollars for every day that he's been in the United States Senate.
I suggest that people go up on the Web site of Citizens Against Government Waste, and they'll look at those projects.
That kind of thing is not the way to rein in runaway spending in Washington, D.C. That's one of the fundamental differences that Senator Obama and I have.
Sarah Palin during her interview with Charlie Gibson
GIBSON: Governor, this year, requested $3.2 million for researching the genetics of harbor seals, money to study the mating habits of crabs. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?
PALIN: Why yes Charlie, it is. Come to think of it, I'm mortified that my state pissed those federal funds away on some stupid science project.Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar. That's the abuse that we're going to stop. That's what John McCain has promised over and over for these years and that's what I'm joining him, also, saying, you're right, the abuse of earmarks, it's un-American, it's undemocratic, and it's not going to be accepted in a McCain-Palin administration. Earmark abuse will stop.
As for that country Mrs Palin can see form her house, Obama and McCain both objected to Russia's actions with regard to Soviet Georgia but Johnny-boy seemed to either not really be sure what happened last month or was subtly acknowledging US encouragement of Georgia's aggression and equally bad behavior.
MCCAIN: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."
Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.
I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a "K," a "G," and a "B." And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior.
I don't believe we're going to go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen. But I do believe that we need to bolster our friends and allies. And that wasn't just about a problem between Georgia and Russia. It had everything to do with energy.
There's a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey. And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time.
It's not accidental that the presidents of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine flew to Georgia, flew to Tbilisi, where I have spent significant amount of time with a great young president, Misha Saakashvili.
MCCAIN: And they showed solidarity with them, but, also, they are very concerned about the Russian threats to regain their status of the old Russian to regain their status of the old Russian empire.
Now, I think the Russians ought to understand that we will support -- we, the United States -- will support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the natural process, inclusion into NATO.
We also ought to make it very clear that the Russians are in violation of their cease-fire agreement. They have stationed additional troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
By the way, I went there once, and we went inside and drove in, and there was a huge poster. And this is -- this is Georgian territory. And there was a huge poster of Vladimir Putin, and it said, "Vladimir Putin, our president."
It was very clear, the Russian intentions towards Georgia. They were just waiting to seize the opportunity.
So, this is a very difficult situation. We want to work with the Russians. But we also have every right to expect the Russians to behave in a fashion and keeping with a -- with a -- with a country who respects international boundaries and the norms of international behavior.
And watch Ukraine. This whole thing has got a lot to do with Ukraine, Crimea, the base of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol. And the breakdown of the political process in Ukraine between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko is a very serious problem.
So watch Ukraine, and let's make sure that we -- that the Ukrainians understand that we are their friend and ally.
South Ossettia does not want to be part of Georgia
Georgia launched a military offensive, in violation of a 1992 ceasefire, crossed a security zoned to surround & capture Tskhinvali
Both Russia and Georgia used cluster-bombs on each other
In other words, Georgia isn't some innocent little victim. While McCain's posturing on the issue doesn't really surprise me, I was (for some reason) a little caught off guard by his direct references to Russian controlled pipelines. I guess that, in light of Sarah Palin eagerness to go to war with Russia, we can only guess that the true underlying reason for being so aggressive is the sheer excitement of yet another war for oil. More support for a McSame administration.
I'm sorry, I pretty much gathered that Sarah Palin would have a problem with the fact I'm a jew but I really didn't think she'd go so far as to insinuate that I am some sort of elitist spoiled child
I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.
No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world. Sarah Palin to Katie Couric
I've worked all my life too: I worked in HS to save for college; I went to an inexpensive state school and worked to pay my way through college; and I still work.
Despite not living anywhere near an international border, my parents drove my brother and I up Canada when we were kids (we even went to Quebec, where they speak a whole different language). I did get my passport after I graduated from college and made my first trip overseas. The bulk of my passport needing travel was for work and, whenever possible, I tried to experience and understand as much of the local culture as possible.
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.
I guess that, if Sarah Palin is an expert on foreign affairs when she's never crossed the borders of either of the countries her state shares I have no choice but to admit that despite my upper-poverty upbringing, I AM AN ELITIST .
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has intimated that, as a mother of 5, women - especially other mothers would have someone in the Whitehouse that would take their concerns seriously. This buoyed the hopes of 15 mothers who decided this was the time to reach out to the candidate
MomsRising, which in two short years has amassed a membership of 140,000 citizens and counts 85 affiliated groups nationwide, yesterday tried to hand-deliver a letter signed by thousands of its members to Palin's office in Washington. In its letter, the group says it was dazzled to see a mom on stage at the Republican convention, accepting the nomination for vice president, but that it has some questions for her. MR wants to know where she stands on issues such as healthcare, afterschool programs, paid sick days and equal pay for working women. LA Times
So how did the Palinistas react to the mob-o-moms? They blew them off, telling group to drop the letter in the post.
As we all know, when our "fundamentally strong" economy necessitated discussion of a $700B bail-out, John McCain announced he would fire SEC Chairman Chris Cox for being at fault for the mess. Despite the fact the President is not empowered to fire the Chair of the SEC (unless the Shrub enacted secret law saying he can fire whomever he pleases), McCain conveniently forgot two other things: #1 - McCain helped hire Cox and, #2 - at least part of the reason McCain Liked Cox for the position, was because Cox wrote the the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act which was a key component to the Republican financial plan based on the deregulationthat McCain is suddenly against.
The problems with current mortgage crisis, according to John "Why doesn't Jimmy Choo make Flip-Flops" McCain & his running mate Sarah "The Reformer" Palin is due to "long-term mismanagement and flawed structure" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a matter of fact, the Republican ticket vowed to restructure the failed organizations in a WSJ editorial:
Fixing Fannie and Freddie, and reforming our mortgage and financial markets, is critical to getting the housing market and the entire economy moving again. A great deal of the savings and wealth of American families is wrapped up in the value of their homes. A house has traditionally been the wealth-building course to retirement. The housing industry employs millions of Americans. One of us, John McCain, said over two years ago, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose."
Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists succeeded and Congress failed. Under our administration this will not happen again
The McCain-Palin campaign insists that fighting domestic violence and sexual assault are priorities for Palin. And they say she has been looking at other programs to support. CNN
The McCain-Palin camp is on the offensive desperately showing that VP candidate Sarah Palin is not the insensitive woman-hating woman people may think she is because she allowed her own city to charge victims for rape kits. According to Palin's supporters, then-Mayor Palin was completely unaware that her city was charging for rape kits despite hiring a Chief of Police who threw a public hissy fit when legislation was passed barring the practice. Palin's former Deputy-Mayor, Judy Patrick, doesn't bother to pretend that Palin didn't know about the practice, she says the state of Alaska forced the city into charging victims:
Judy Patrick, who was Palin's deputy mayor and friend, blames the state.
"The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget, and one of the things that they were doing was passing on costs to cities, and that was one of the many things that they were passing on, the cost to the city," said Patrick, who recalls enormous pressure to keep the city's budget down.
Except that's not true. The state never responsible for local criminal investigations and, under the previous administration and Police Chief Palin fired, the Wasilla PD paid for costs of rape kits from a fund for miscellaneous costs - a fund Palin cut by more than half, apparently, without even asking what the funds were used for. According to Patrick
Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes.
"Sarah is a fiscal conservative, and so she had seen that the city was heading in a direction of bigger projects, costing taxpayers more money, and she was determined to change that," Patrick said.
Yeah, the McCain campaign says fighting domestic violence and sexual assault are priorities for Palin now but they sure as hell weren't until everyone else started looking in to her extensive executive experience.
David Kernell, a 20-year old student at University of Tennessee and son of Democratic State Representative Mike Kernell, is facing some serious whoop-ass from the feds for his youthful hijnks of hacking into the email account of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
A Department of Justice spokesperson confirmed there has been "investigatory activity" in Knoxville regarding the Palin case, but she said there are no publicly available search warrants, and no charges have been filed.
A separate law enforcement source confirmed to 10 News that a search warrant was served on Kernell's apartment.
According to the witness, several agents arrived at The Commons of Knoxville around midnight.
They presented their badges upon entering Kernell's apartment, where several students were having a party, and took down their names.
The witness tells us they asked him and those who did not live in the unit to go outside. He believes the investigators took about 1.5 to 2 hours taking pictures of everything inside the apartment. WBIR
The dumbass kid has also earned his roommates a trip to Chattanooga so they, unlike the First Dude and the Palinistas, can comply with subpoenas for their testimony.
John McCain thinks his faith is a better spiritual guidance for a leader than any other. He also notes that we'll welcome just about anyone here in the US, but any one who lives here must understand the American=Christian philosophy, after all the founding of the US was "man implementing the teachings of Christ"
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note: the amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion", it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Of course, I'm being very literal in my read. . .
Additionally, John Adams, a founding father who was the 2nd President of the US explicitly stated otherwise in the Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli [emphasis added]:
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"
While the article was removed after the treaty was broken in 1801 and the treaty renegotiated in 1805, the intent of the founding fathers is as clear as the intent of the McCain-Palin "Small town values equals good Christian values" ticket.
Well, according to documents uncovered by ABC News, it looks like Sarah Palin is not exactly lying when she says she didn't fire Walt Monegan [purely] for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She fired him for a much more egregious reason, his "rogue" mentality and refusal to follow her every directive:
"The last straw," her lawyer argued, came when he planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape.
The McCain-Palin campaign echoed the charge in a press release it distributed Monday, concurrent with Palin's legal filing. "Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.," the release stated. ABC News
See the rogue mentality, which lead Monegan to buck the pressure to join Palin's personal vendetta again former her brother-in-law Trooper Mike Wooten, also lead the reckless renegade of a Public Safety Commissioner to do the job he was hired to do. To this effect, Monegan obtained authorization to travel from Palin's Chief of Staff instead of getting a permission slip from Mrs. Palin herself and, when you're in the scope of Sarahcuda's crossbow, zigging when you should have zagged is a violation of her administration's directives and a fireable offense. This means that, while the Palin administration permitted Monegan to travel to DC in his official capacity, he wasn't allowed to say or do anything without the expressed written permission of the governor herself. According to Palin aide, Randy Ruaro:
Monegan asked for -- and received -- approval for the travel without telling Palin's staff his reason for going. "As a matter of routine, the travel was approved by Mike Nizich ... weeks before the actual purpose was made clear by former Commissioner Monegan," Ruaro wrote.
"When you receive permission to travel, it does not mean that you receive blanket authorization to discuss or do whatever you would like on that trip," he added.
So there you have it folks: any state Public Safety Commissioner who wants to travel to a meeting to obtain support to curb acts of sexual violence plaguing his/her state is dangerous, irresponsible and insubordinate - even when authorization to travel to attend a meeting with a US Senator representing the state is obtained. If the Palinista's were so concerned that Monegan was a renegade (disloyal to her administration), why did they not specifically ask what the topic of Monegan's meeting with Senator Murkowski would be and/or what, exactly, Monegan planned to do during his business trip to DC?
Yesterday, Autumn posted a diary at Pam's in which she raised the issue of Conservative Republican David Benkof's decision to stop supporting California's Proposition 8. The reason Benkoff's Benkof's change of heart is so interesting, is the fact that he's not about to vote against Proposition 8 because he now realizes that it would be wrong to deny gay people the same right to marry as straight people have, he's against it because the Pro-Proposition 8 bigots believe in spreading the hate:
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I supported the man-woman marriage Proposition 8 in California - until I discovered the Proposition 8 campaign tolerates discrimination against Jews. ProtectMarriage.com's legal counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund, has in effect a "No Jews Need Apply" policy for legal and even secretarial positions. They say they're not a law firm, they're a "ministry" and thus have a right to discriminate against Jews and other non-Christians. But even if that's true, Proposition 8 had hundreds of law firms to choose from. The fact they chose one that refuses to hire a Jew like me is very disturbing. Interestingly, Jesus himself was a Jew, so when a group has a policy that would lead them to refuse to hire their own Messiah, you know something's seriously wrong.
The post started an interesting firestorm of comments starting with my comment that Benkof should be ashamed of himself and degenerating into a weird argument in which Benkof had to explain that he's not "ex-gay" - he's still gay, just not a practicing homosexual (the gay verion of being a secular Jew or something along those lines). It also spawned a thread in which Benkof had the stones to join the christotheocratic chorus decrying "secularists" for refusing to be forced to accept religiously based legislation as a way to impose religion on non-adherents:
As for "forced," you want to have your secular beliefs forced on me. All I'm doing is using my one vote and my freedom of speech and the press to get the laws to represent my values. You do the same. Are you saying only you should have input into the laws? I really don't understand.
In a nutshell, anyone who supports allowing the US government to enact bible-based legislation because it happens to conform to their personal/religious views is condoning theocracy. In other words, one does not have to support a forced conversion to be suppressing the religious freedom of another. Your right to religious expression does not supersede my right to religious freedom.
Those of us who object to Proposition 8 as the imposition of the religious dogma of others on non-adherents are not, in any way, forcing those who object to Same Sex Marriage (SSM) to condone, partake in or otherwise support the marriage of gay people. As a gay man whose religious views are inconsistent with his own nature, Mr. Benkof can apply his conscientious objection to homosexuality and SSM by living in accordance with his understanding of the tenets of his religion; by not indulging whatever feelings or attractions he has to men and by not supporting any gay acquaintances who choose to marry. Benkof may be doing the right thing in exposing the bigotry of "ProtectMarriage.com" but his complaints about their practices and beliefs are, in fact, as much as an indictment of himself as they are of the organization he now holds in contempt.
But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience, or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.
In a follow-up to his wife's I was for being held accountablebefore I was against it flip flop, First Dude Todd Palin has invoked his executive privilege and is refusing to comply with the subpoena issued for him for the growing Troopergate scandal. The stated reasons for refusal to comply have ranged from an accusation that the investigation is a partisan attempt to derail the McCain-Palin-McCain campaign to the Republican Alaskan AG's concern that Palin's staff would feel disloyal providing any testimony against her
Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.
"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote. Newsvine
I guess the easiest way to quash a subpoena is to make sure you ensure you argue strongly against being investigated say you really, really, REALLYdon't want to be investigated (not to be confused with providing a strong case against the investigation).
The state's republican party has, obviously, decided that Palin should have been investigated if she was just going to stay Governor but once there was the possibility of her tanking the Republican Presidential campaign being embarrassed for being busted for abuse of power they decided that reforming "The Reformer" was a little too mean.
My dear friend, Don "I'm obsessed by what's going on in your bedroom" Wildmon, sent me this lovely email asking me to inform everyone I know about how McDonald's sent it's staff to a training seminar in Austin, TX and had the audacity to let the organizers know they were sending enough staff to qualify for a 10% group discount. According to Wildmon,
Eligibility to receive the discount required "groups of 15 or more registrants for the full price 3-day (Out & Equal 2008 Workplace) Summit."
McDonald's applied for the special "discount code" off the regular registration price of $775 per person. The registration price did not include the employee's air travel, hotel and meal expenses.
I really couldn't tell why Don seemed so angry in his email. After all, even though the economy is A-OK, I'm sure that McDonald's finance department would have been upset if they hadn't asked for the discount - that's a minimum of a $1,162 the company saved. Even though I'm not a shareholder, it's nice to know that the folks at McDonald's are being fiscally responsible.
Any way, Don also sent me this link that lets you locate a McDonald's near you so you can write the manager to let them know you think it's great they're committed to diversity - even though they look like cheapskates for asking for the discount.
It's clear that the failed policies of the Bush administration, rife with corruption and disdain for regulation, have made this recession unavoidable and it's abundantly clear that a McCain-Palin administration is more than one Bush sequel too many for this country to bear. Now that he's been busted on his total oblivion to the economic crisis and the fact that people realize his running mate's idea of reform is to just be a little less corrupt, McCain is suddenly saying that he's all gung-ho for reform and regulation. Says Jeffrey Sachs, a economist and special advisor the U.N. secretary-general [emphasis, mine]:
"I think right now that this is a recession that's going to happen," he said."I don't see anybody being able to stop that giant wave. The question is how we get out if it."
Sachs said he thinks Obama's plan is "closer" to being on target, with his calls for regulation. McCain also has started talking about increased regulation, but Sachs said McCain has "reinvented himself in the last 24 hours" with such talk. CNN
Long story short: bipartisan legislative panel decides to investigate Palin for abuse of power, Palin claims she has nothing to hide, Palin hides. Yup, she's transparent all right.
The state of Nebraska's safe haven law took effect in July and, this week-end, the first kids were turned in to hospitals under this law. In one case, a 44-year old woman turned in her 15-year old nephew because she couldn't handle his behavioral problems. The other child, also turned in due to behavioral issues, is an 11-year old boy turned over to a hospital in Omaha by his mother.
The actual intent of the law was to introduced to protect infants at imminent risk of harm and, people have expressed concerns about the possibility of parents/guardians using the lack of definition of "child" in the law to shirk their responsibilities. Considering the state of the economy (A-OK according to McCain) otherwise kids of strapped families may need to fear any sudden trip to the cornhusker state.
"They ought to -- there ought to be an adult who says, 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and won't we get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?' - Karl Rove
Last month, Russia-Georgia tensions exploded as Russia began an armed offensive against Georgia over South Ossetia. Since the breakdown of the USSR, the region has been less than stable and the root of much of this instability is "ethnic tensions". South Ossetia in Georgia is no different but the degree to which Russia and Georgia are willing to fight this battle out is of great concern. To make a long story short, the South Ossetians aren't to happy about having been annexed by Georgia (where they're treated like second class citizens) and held a referendum in 2006 in which they voted for independence.
Sarah Palin has a problem with a larger country invading a smaller country (if that smaller country is considered "Democratic") and thinks that smaller (unstable) country, Georgia, should be invited into NATO and that the US should go to war to protect them.
We have a puppet in Georgia, his name is Mikheil Saakashvili. According to the Russians, the US has helped finance the militarization of Georgia. Now, granted, the Russians are not the most reliable of sources but the US government does have a history of a philosophy is that the enemy of our enemy is our friend - remember when Saddam Hussein was our friend and ally? South Ossetia's desire to be independent of Georgia be damned - we have a game to play and we're prepared for the small people to take the consequences so we can try to control other countries via the puppetmasters we install/support.
McCain-Palin has decided that Russia is solely at fault and the only agressor, so like our invasion of Iraq, the Republicans are willing to further destabilize an unstable region by considering yet another war.
07Aug08 - Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered a cease-fire; fighting intensified
08Aug08 - Georgia launched a military offensive, in violation of a 1992 ceasefire, crossed a security zoned to surround & capture Tskhinvali
09Aug08 - Russia got pissed and sunk a Georgian missle boat
12Aug08 - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to a 6-point peace plan brokered by Carla Bruni's husband Nicolas Sarkozy - both sides were to sign the agreement 17Aug08
Anyone who know my family history knows, I'm no fan of the Russians. In this case, my guess is that Saakashvili made some serious miscalculations in bringing things to a boil and these miscalculations were based on the support he receives from BushCo and expects to continue to receive from BushCo II: Palinistas on steroids a McCain-Palin administration. This conflict has the potential to degenerate into something much worse and each side's willingness to use cluster munitions is just a preview of how bad things could get. The US would do better not to further inflame the situation by talking about the possibility of entering a war we can ill afford at this point in time.
We've all heard it from the Republicans before: The Democrats are Tax & Spend liberals who, just by virtue of not being Republican, increase our taxes so they can spend the money on some sort of waste our hard earned money on bridges to nowhere wasteful liberal schemes. Now, courtesy of MSNBC, we have an exact description of what Sarah "the reformer" Palin considers the "Tax & Spend mentality" that inspire her to run for Mayor of Wasilla:
But in her four years on the council, she picked up on sentiment that was building against the three-term incumbent, John Stein, who pushed for the 2 percent sales tax to pay for road, sewer and water upgrades. These investments laid the way for the city's growth, but they also unnerved some residents.
"People said, 'What are you doing to my city? I liked it better when we didn't have government,' '' said Richard Deuser, the city attorney at the time. "And Sarah really pandered to that resentment, that resistance to change. Sarah became their person."
She also scaled back her own less than formidable executive duties:
The universe of the mayor of Wasilla is sharply circumscribed even by the standards of small towns, which limited Palin's exposure to issues such as health care, social services, the environment and education.
Firefighting and schools, two of the main elements of local governance, are handled by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the regional government for a huge swath of central Alaska. The state has jurisdiction over social services and environmental regulations such as stormwater management for building projects.
What Palin did as Mayor was oversee the Police Department created by the previous Mayor and her formal rival for the job, John "his name sounds Jewish" Stein. In this capacity, she fired the guy Stein hired and replaced him with Charlie "I disagree with a bill that prevents me from charging victims for rape kits" Fannon. Palin was also was responsible for the public works department, parks and recreation, a planning office, the library from which she tried to fire the librarian for not being open to book banning and a history museum which caused her headaches. The bulk of the day-to-day running of the city was done by a professional administrator that Palin hired to do the job due to a threat of a recall campaign.
As for her being against the tax & spend mentality, her actions show that she is far from the fiscally responsible conservative she claims to be when running for office.
During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which even taxed food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though. Borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library? No. $1 million for a park. $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex, which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the city didn't even have clear title to. That was still in litigation seven years later -- to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 years without any borrowing. Wasilla Resident, Ann Kilkenny
Yes, with the cronyism, vendettas, secrecy and fiscal irresponsibility, Sarah Palin has proven herself to be a chip of the old BushCo block - but don't ask her about it, that would be sexist.
I know, I'm a total bitch for publicly noting I'm a little confused about Sarah Palin being a reformer and against earmarks. I mean, after all, she did say "Thanks, but No Thanks" to the bridge to nowhere and that's not a total lie. Granted, she was for the bridge before she was against it but, then, when it became obvious the whole country was against it she decided against it. This shows that Mrs. Palin isn't rigid or un willing to change her mind about something - especially when she was able to keep a sizable portion of the funds that were part of the earmark and has spent tens of millions of dollars to starting building a road to that bridge to nowhere. Plus, as her supporters, John McCain among them, have pointed out: Palin didn't request the earmark.
McCain even went so far as to tell the yentas on The View that Palin had not requested any earmarks - at least not as Governor.
The problem is, that's not true and McCain had to clarify his comments by having his spokesperson say he didn't really say she never asked for earmarks, the viewers just misunderstood his description of how she was reforming the Alaska State budget and cutting some of that other white meat:
"Sen. McCain was in the throes of a discussion about her record of reforming government, which includes drastic cuts in wasteful spending in the Alaska state budget," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "If he gave viewers a mistaken impression, it certainly wasn't intentional or without some basis in fact."
The problem is, that's not entirely true either. Yes, she did cut back on the requests for earmarks requesting only only $198M in earmarks for 2009, $58M less than she had requested for this year. Her reasons for decrease in the amount requested seem to be less about reform or cutting waste than they seem to be about the recent change in the state's abilities to have these requests honored:
Since then, Palin has cut back her requests for earmarks, submitting $198 million in requests for 2009 fiscal year compared with $256 million for the previous year, her first as governor. Her position was best summed up during a news conference she held this summer with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) when she said that political realities required Alaskans to think differently about earmarks.
"Both presidential candidates have both confirmed that they will work towards earmark reforms," she said. "So, just recognizing that, seeing the writing on the wall and dealing with it, is where I am." LA Times
This is a little different from what she told Charlie Gibson the other day:
Via Pam, the transcripts of last October's Republican Debate reveals some very interesting discussion between the candidates about who/what positions have actual executive responsibility and national security experience as it pertains to qualifications to put together an administration to lead this country:
Guiliani on McCain:
Oh, the simple fact is that New York City had a policy of allowing people who are illegal immigrants to report crime and to put their children in school. Otherwise, we reported every single illegal immigrant that committed a crime.
The results had to be pretty darn good. I brought down crime by over 60 percent in New York City. I brought down homicide by 67 percent. I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country.
The senator has never had executive responsibility. He's never had the weight of people's safety and security on his shoulders.
I have. And I think I out-performed any expectations.
McCain, ostensibly on Guiliani and Romney (and now, more pointedly, on Sarah Palin)
The fact is, I'm running on my record as a reliable conservative of 24 years. And the indicators of that, obviously, is that I've fought wasteful spending, I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism.
I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training.
I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time.I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. For 20-some years, including leading the largest squadron in the United States Navy, I led. I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism.
The Seattle Times has a laugh-riot of a story about Sarah Palin's initial campaign to be Mayor of Wasilla and her first year in the position. This woman must be Karl Rove's love child:
To Stein, the three-term mayor, this campaign had unusual overtones, raising issues that had no bearing on local government. He would marvel at how abortion became an issue — he was labeled pro-abortion — and how some people noted that his wife's last name differed from his. He later noted how Palin's backers included what he called the "Liquor Cabinet" and Wasilla's religious conservatives.
In October 1996, about a third of Wasilla's registered voters went to the polls. Palin collected 616 votes — 58 percent of the total. "It's a new direction," she told the Frontiersman, the local newspaper.
Afterward, a TV station called her Wasilla's "first Christian mayor." This prompted a letter from Stein, saying: "Really?" He listed eight previous mayors, all Christian, and added: "With a name like 'Stein' some suspected that I must be a non-Christian, have non-Christian blood or at least have sympathized with a non-Christian sometime in my career. I'm proud of such a reputation but I, my family and forbearers are of the Christian persuasion, too."
The story has a little more detail on the firings we've all been hearing about and also let's us know that when Sarah Palin says she's been intimidated someone has really threatened her:
"When I met with you in private, instead of engaging in interactive conversation with me, you gave me short, uncommunicative answers and then you would sit there and stare at me in silence with a very stern look, like you were trying to intimidate me."
Over the past few years I've noticed a number of words re-defined for purely political purposes. While those who conflate religion and politics (heretofore called the Repubevanglicals) are pitching a hissy that permitting gay people to obtain a valid marriage license (along with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with a marital contract) in effect redefines marriage, they've been busily plodding away at completing altering the meaning of certain words themselves. While some words, like marriage, have multiple meanings/definitions, the linguistic trend among Repubevangelicals takes on a trend that can only be understood in context with their beliefs about moral relativism. To wit, the Repubevanglicals are moral absolutists and deride all attempts to put any decision they consider to be a moral one in context with a specific situation (aka relativism) unless they are the ones to do so. Case in point: contraception. While the definition of contraception is the prevention of conception (contra = against + (con)ception = inception of pregnancy), the Repubevangelicals have recently redefined contraception as abortion.
As for sexism, there is no doubt that reference to Hillary Clinton in the political arena have been fraught with sexist remarks going back to her husband's presidential campaigns and have increased over the years of her own political career culminating in her entire career being boiled down to "8 years a first lady" and a littany of assertions that she has no credible experience or qualifications. Make no bones about it, politics are ugly and dirty, unsubstantiated attacks seem par for the course on both sides. . .they are used within parties and between them. Republicans didn't just set their attacks dogs on Clinton, they cheered all attacks against Clinton responding to any expressed concern about sexism as Hillary just whining when she should expect and accept these attacks as legitimate and useful. However, in a stunning turn of events, the Republican party and their supporters have redefined sexism to mean any and all critiques of a Republican woman's creditials, policies, experience and/or decision-making. As such, sexism is now a bad thing since it's not targeted against a woman of the Democratic persuasion. I call this an obvious case of political relativism (more commonly known as stereotypical Repubevangelical hypocrisy).
So, now that this is all in the open, what is fair game in the questioning/evaluation of Sarah Palin and what is sexist or should otherwise be off limits? Anne Kornblutt assess the situation in today's WaPo
It may seem a pretty pointless exercise -- envisioning the "would haves" if Clinton and Palin had somehow swapped roles, parties and lives. But it is a useful tool as a reporter, a way of contemplating what is fair game now by comparing it with what was fair game then. Even the issue of "Would you ask a man the same question" (raised so indignantly last week by senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani) falls slightly short, simply because there are so few templates for female candidates running for higher office -- and the ones who have, including Clinton, Palin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have tried to use their roles as mothers and women as part of the overall package in ways that men do not.
[snip]
Still, in her first week on the national stage, Palin and her surrogates have brandished the sexism charge more unabashedly than Clinton has over the course of two very public decades. And Palin has not yet even faced serious questioning in person, in an interview or in a one-on-one debate. If Clinton's message was that she was a survivor -- that she had been vetted and tested, her viewpoints scrutinized, with all of her personal problems known to the country -- Palin's has so far been that she has, by virtue of being nominated, already passed every test that Clinton took. Palin's mantra, it seems, is that women no longer need to surpass men in their achievements and qualifications in order to win; they simply need to object when the question of their preparedness is raised.
Earlier this week, "Concerned Woman" Michelle Bachman (R-MN) made an appearance on Larry King Live and hailed Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin as a "reformer" for selling the former Alaskan Governor's plane on eBay
She also noted that Mrs. Palin was against that infamous bridge to nowhere and, like her claims on that bridge, it seems as though Palin's stories about the jet and its sale on ebay have been embellished a bit:
Palin's statement implied that the plane had sold through the online auction site, which is revered for empowering millions of small entrepreneurs. And on Thursday, Palin's spokeswoman, Maria Comella, insisted that the transaction had occurred.
The plane did sell -- but not on EBay. The aircraft was offered on the website but didn't find a buyer.
Additionally, it seems as though the jet and its use may not have been as extravagant as previously alleged
Because Alaska does not have adequate prison capacity, it contracts for space with a private facility near Phoenix. On Thursday, 24% of the 4,546 Alaskans in jail or prison were serving their time at Arizona's Red Rock Correctional Center, said Richard Schmitz, spokesman for the Alaska Department of Corrections.
When the state began using the plane in November 2005, prisoner transport accounted for 58% of the jet's use, and Murkowski's office used it 23% of the time. Over time, Murkowski's usage increased.
In all fairness, using the private jet for this purpose cost about twice the cost of using the US Marshal's service (I have no data on the cost for the 10% who are transported commercially). Palin could have gotten the same effect by just saying she thought the plane to be over the top so she tried to sell it on ebay so one has to wonder why she and her staff not only exaggerated the story, they actually stood by the embellishment when questioned about it.
I wish I were joking about this. In, about one of the most offensive comments to come from the McCain campaign, Nicolle Wallace said "Who cares" when asked if Palin can answer questions about domestic and foreign policy.
While the McCain campaign and Palin supporters decry any question whether Mrs. Palin has the necessary experience, background and comprehension of critical issues to serve in this country's second highest office, they are doing everything possible to avoid allowing her to show her mettle. One can only surmise that this is just more of the McSame administration having to memorize speeches/read from teleprompters and stick to a carefully scripted statement lest one show one's ignorance of the issue or temper (and, I guess, to limit the impact of making things up or use of lies that may not be so easily spun).
Yes, the straight talk express is now the no talk express. Mrs. Palin will tell the people what the Bush Administration McSame campaign, Republican Party and Daddy Dobson want her to tell the people and any interviews will be done in the confines and care of overt supporters to ensure the script is adhered to and/or the editors are sympathetic to the cause.
egalia and some others are upset with the focus on the Palin's current family tribulations. Many see discussion that, by necessity, references the pregnancy of 17-year old Bristol Palin as attacking the child or focusing too much attention on her. Many are reflecting on a need to keep family matters private, especially with regard to children. Others view the discourse as a misogynistic attack on Palin by questioning the decisions she has made as a parent. While I agree that attacking Bristol and her 18-year old boyfriend are inappropriate, I can not and do not agree that questioning Sarah (and Todd) Palin's recent decisions and how they have impacted her children during her run for the Vice Presidency are in any way misogynistic or even out of bounds.
Sarah Palin runs on a platform that refuses to allow my medical decisions regarding my reproductive organs to remain a private and personal affair. During her earliest parlay into the political process, Sarah Palin insisted on interjecting her views in venues they really weren't necessary or appropriate:
But in the first major race of her career — the 1996 campaign for mayor of her hometown, Wasilla — Palin was a far more conventional politician. In fact, according to some who were involved in that fight, Palin was a highly polarizing political figure who brought partisan politics and hot-button social issues like abortion and gun control into a mayoral race that had traditionally been contested like a friendly intramural contest among neighbors.
[snip]
Four years later, she took on her former workout buddy in a race that quickly became contentious. In Stein's view, Palin's main transgression was injecting big-time politics into a small-town local race. "It was always a nonpartisan job," he says. "But with her, the state GOP came in and started affecting the race." While Palin often describes that race as having been a fight against the old boys' club, Stein says she made sure the campaign hinged on issues like gun owners' rights and her opposition to abortion (Stein is pro-choice). "It got to the extent that — I don't remember who it was now — but some national antiabortion outfit sent little pink cards to voters in Wasilla endorsing her," he says.
Vicki Naegele was the managing editor of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman at the time. "[Stein] figured he was just going to run your average, friendly small-town race," she recalls, "but it turned into something much different than that." Naegele held the same conservative Christian beliefs as Palin but didn't think they had any place in local politics.
"I just thought, That's ridiculous, she should concentrate on roads, not abortion," says Naegele. Time
Even as a small town mayor, Palin insisted on imposing her religious views (and partisan politics) by threatening to fire the librarian for not supporting the Palin administration (in other words, the librarian wasn't too keen to have Mrs. Palin require her to ban books) and helping maintain the abortion issue as a central and divisive topic in mayoral elections after she could no longer serve. Ethics Reform did not become a central issue for Mrs. Palin until she could no longer use wedge issues like abortion to move to the next level. Whether or not she is a reformer or just not as corrupt as the previous Governor of Alaska depends on with whom you speak. What we do know is that, in order to transition to the national level, wedge issues are again a central theme and the reason she is on her party's ticket.
It is exceptionally naive for Palin and her supporters to ignore her "private family matter" when, in accepting McCain's offer, she put her teen-aged pregnant daughter on display for the masses (heck, they're even flying the father out to the convention - which is neither a good decision nor one that screams "respect my daughter's privacy"). It would be a lie to say that it doesn't matter that the party that chastises liberals on all issues related to the sanctity of marriage, reproductive issues, medical determination and family values (including the selfishness of working mothers) has put forth a candidate who seems to go out of her way to put her own ambitious career aspirations well ahead of the needs of her children. It not only matters, it matters a lot.
It's equally naive for us to accept the demands of Mrs. Palin and her supporters to relegate this issue to a private family matter for themselves when their policies would not afford others the same courtesy. In saying this, I'm not advocating taking Bristol Palin to task, I'm just in favor of reminding them that one of their favorite SCOTUS justices says there is no right to privacy (meaning there is no such thing as private family matter).
I actually believe McCain's folks when they say they knew about Bristol's pregnancy. I think it's fully possible that the fundies who insisted on advancing Mrs. Palin on the ticket may have known as well. Call me a cynic, but I think they actually counted on getting the reaction they’re now getting about the announcement of Bristol’s pregnancy. They’re opportunists and they want the liberal pile on attacking the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin’s platform and her apparently judgment in putting her political aspirations before the current needs of her children. They spin this that those who question Palin’s judgment and McCain’s selection of her, as well as her lack of experience as bullies going after her family and being sexist. It’s actually a brilliant, almost Rovian, move.
The pat few days just continue to raise issues about Palin's & McCain's judgment as individuals and as a collective. More importantly, they just proven to us that in supporting the McCain-Palin ticket, the Republican party is just giving us more of the McSame.
So the latest on the campaign trail is that Bristol Palin, the 17-year old daughter of abstinence-only education promoter and McCain running mate Sarah Palin, is 5 months pregnant. The news was revealed, according to a Palin aide, to head off rumors that Sarah Palin actually faked a pregnancy to hide that then 16-year old Bristol Palin (who was out of school for somewhere between 5 - 8 months suffering from mono) was expecting.
On Friday, April 18th, 2008, Sarah and her husband Todd were in Dallas, Texas for a Republican Governor's Convention. They had been in town for three days already, but Sarah had yet to give her keynote speaker address on energy policy. Then early Friday morning at 4:00am, Sarah began leaking amniotic fluid. Instead of checking into a hospital, she instead made a call to her doctor, and delivered the keynote speech.
"I was not going to miss that speech," she says.
She rushed so quickly from the podium afterwards that Texas Gov. Rick Perry nervously asked if she was about to deliver the baby then.
The oddities only grow from here on, as instead of rushing to a Dallas medical facility that could treat a mother who's amniotic fluid has been draining for hours on end (made even more crucial due to the fact that this is occurring a full month prematurely), Sarah & Todd instead opted to... Fly all the way back from Texas to Alaska. A dangerous choice, as with each pregnancy (once again, in this case after four previous), a mother's window of labor to delivery grows shorter and shorter.
Out of sheer concern about the health & well-being of their unborn child, immediately upon landing in Anchorage the Palin's headed directly to the closest medical facility best equipped to handle a pre-term delivery drove an additional 45 minutes to Mat-Su Regional Medical Center to ensure a safe delivery. Palin returned to work 3 days after delivering her pre-term, special needs baby boy.
I admit it, as a woman attacked by the religious right for not having acceptable moral convictions, this irks the shit outta me. This behavior seems to show the very lack of respect for family (her own family, no less) and - dare I say it - selfish and willful irresponsibility that those of us who do not lead the life the religious right insists we live are accused of. In other words, the story of Sarah Palin's pregnancy and delivery of Trig is much more disturbing than the rumor that the Palin's chose to hide a daughter's pregnancy and raise her child as their own.
BUT the convoluted storyline doesn't end there. As noted above, the family has just announced that the daughter previously rumored to have given birth to 5-month old Trig in now about 5-months pregnant herself.
I could, and probably have, gone on to say that maybe Bristol Palin would have been more responsible and abstained from sex with her boyfriend if her mother (?parents?) had spent some quality time with her children towards the end of her pregnancy with Trig or even after his birth. Mind you all that is going through my little head is that, in accepting McCain's offer to be his running-mate while her family is adjusting to a special needs infant and knowing that her teen-age daughter is well into the 2nd trimester, Sarah Palin's priorities seem to be pretty darned skewed.
This is not a sexist/misogynistic rant against a woman, making the female of the species more accountable than the male as many Conservative Republicans do. This is about a candidate who runs on the Traditional Values ticket, a ticket that insists on legislating morality and family decisions (and that their beliefs are the only correct ones) who appears to be more focused on a power grab than her own family. This is a candidate supported by those who say women with children and a career are selfish. Palin's actions seem to be the basis of their accusations against all women with careers and children. Do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy.
As I've said in my many posts/comments on other blogs (namely, Pam's), I would be all over a father who acted the same way and chose to put his family through a grueling campaign right now, while going through these family issues during which the family is under a glaring spotlight. I question Sarah Palin's judgment because she seems to act based on what she, personally, wants/wants to do as opposed to being willing to consider what might truly be best given the situation. This sort of thinking is expected from an adolescent, not from someone who may be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
I'm not criticizing her choice to maintain a pregnancy and raise a child with special needs. I'm not questioning Bristol Palin's decision to continue her pregnancy and raise her child (though, in most cases I personally don't think it is in the child's best interests to be raised by a teenager). I am, however, criticizing the judgment of Sarah and Todd Palin in the unnecessary risks they chose to take in the delivery of their son & their judgment of whether this is really the time for Sarah Palin to take to the national stage considering the current issues their minor children face. They are the adults and they should take their children into consideration when making these decisions.
As for putting the majority of the emphasis on Sarah Palin's decision-making ability, I feel the need to note that she is the one running for VP and that in doing so she is the one who is advocating so-called traditional values policies. UPDATED:Did the Palins disclose their family situation during the vetting process? If not, it shows some recklessness does it not? If so, it casts even more aspersions on John McCain's decision-making abilities.John McCain claims to have been well aware of young Ms. Palin's pregnancy prior to making his offer to her mother. While I agree that an unplanned pregnancy should not disqualify anyone from running from office I wonder why a man whose party thinks they should be the ones to make reproductive/medical decisions for all women would choose to add to the stress of Bristol Palin's life. Is it cynical to think that the Republican party and the Palins are willing to make the Palin children bigger props in their religious crusade?
Had this all been addressed honestly and publicly from the outset, I may disagree with Palin's decision to run but would have had no choice but to respect her honesty. Right now it just feels like some bad publicity stunt with the Repulican party is running on the screw-ball comedy with a happy ending plan and that's just plain unacceptable. Sphere: Related Content
So, only the stupid, uneducated, working class ninnies will be somehow fooled into voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, Andrea? Them thar smart, educated, upper class women are too smart for that? Is that what we are saying here, Andrea?
He then went on to completely miss Mitchell's point by adding:
So, on top of calling any women who might vote for McCain because of the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket uneducated, Mitchell needlessly strayed off topic to search for some way to make Republicans look mean.
No Mr. Huston, Andrea Mitchell did not indicate that any woman who voted for Sarah Palin is uneducated, she stated that any Hillary Clinton supporter who voted for Sarah Palin is either woefully uneducated as to what Clinton's candidacy stood for or is so inconsiderate of the state of this nation and her responsibility as a citizen that the sole determinant of who gets her vote is the gender of the candidate. If the republican supporters for the McCain-Palin ticket can not tell the significant difference between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, one has to wonder why those who were foaming at the mouth to ward off a Hillary Clinton presidency would so readily embrace Ms. Palin.
The only thing I can think of is that, perhaps, the republican party just thinks all women are interchangeable (though, since they tend to think all married women with children should be home raising their babies, one has to wonder why Sarah Palin and the "traditional values" Christotheocracy set would find Palin to be a palatable running mate unless they think the VP actually a queen and that our republic form of government should really be a monarchy).
The Disenchanted Forest is the virtual abode of Ol Cranky, a curmudgeonly clinical research professional in dire need of pharmacologic intervention. View my complete profile
Note on format changes
I've recently upgraded my template and switched back to blogger comments from haloscan. Haloscan comments are now archived.
Joe Sestak's Statement on Presidential Speech
-
from the inbox:
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak voiced support for
President Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. For...
