The Obamas visited the White House today and were treated with great courtesy by President and Mrs. Bush. Pictures and commentary have been on all of the news talk shows, and I have found myself being oddly moved by it all. What the hell; this happens every four to eight years. And then I realized: Zimbabwe.
In that unhappy nation elections are held and the losing incumbent refuses to relinquish power. The UN has to step in and work out a “power sharing” arrangement, and the losing incumbent refuses to honor that agreement, maintaining office by threats and the use of terror tactics on his people.
Here we have had eight years of a presidency that took executive privilege to unheard of extent, that gave new meaning to the term “unitary executive.” This is a president who has wrapped himself in the title “Commander in Chief” and called himself “the Decider.”
And yet when the time comes, he meets his successor at the door of the White House, shakes his hand and says, “Welcome to your new office.”
This is a great nation.
Noted in passing:
Chris Matthews referred to the office in passing as “the nation’s chief executive.” Thank you, Chris, that was music to my ears. I hope it is a sign of things to come.
Robert Reich, financial advisor to Barack Obama, in discussing the financial crisis and pending ways of dealing with it mentioned Obama, “mobilizing the people to be pressuring Congress to be sure things get done.” Not even a week since he was elected and here is a hint, however small, that Obama might be keeping his campaign promise to make “change happen from the bottom up.”
And I'm going to have to quit bragging about the weather. It's clear today, but it rained almost a tenth of an inch yesterday and the high today was only 67. It could reach 90 this weekend though.
(Obviously that last was snark and I'm still bragging.)
Showing posts with label presidential politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
A More Perfect Union
On Election Day 2008 America cast off the threadbare jacket of ethnic tolerance and wrapped itself in the new, warm mantle of acceptance, equality and justice.
Tolerance was the result of a movement in the 1960’s that involved anger, strife and violent protest. It was a necessary and valuable movement, it was a movement that I supported strongly at the time, but it was a movement that in the end divided a nation and resulted in laws that coerced tolerance.
Barack Obama started a movement that united a nation, united a people. Asked why he would not be critical of the opposition party, he asked in response that if he spoke only to members of his own party how could he reunite a country? He appealed to our better nature and he made us a better people. We looked at this man, we saw the color of his skin and we elected him President.
We, the people of this nation, chose this man.
In a moment of symbolism, it was no one state that put the electoral vote over the top. Immediately when the Pacific states polls closed, three states were called simultaneously and Obama was projected as the next President. That was a nice touch.
Better than the happy crowds was Jesse Jackson, standing silent gazing into the distance with tears streaming down his face. I can’t help but think he was seeing Dr. King, and all who marched with him and are no longer with us, finally at peace.
This, not tolerance, is what they marched for.
Tolerance was the result of a movement in the 1960’s that involved anger, strife and violent protest. It was a necessary and valuable movement, it was a movement that I supported strongly at the time, but it was a movement that in the end divided a nation and resulted in laws that coerced tolerance.
Barack Obama started a movement that united a nation, united a people. Asked why he would not be critical of the opposition party, he asked in response that if he spoke only to members of his own party how could he reunite a country? He appealed to our better nature and he made us a better people. We looked at this man, we saw the color of his skin and we elected him President.
We, the people of this nation, chose this man.
In a moment of symbolism, it was no one state that put the electoral vote over the top. Immediately when the Pacific states polls closed, three states were called simultaneously and Obama was projected as the next President. That was a nice touch.
Better than the happy crowds was Jesse Jackson, standing silent gazing into the distance with tears streaming down his face. I can’t help but think he was seeing Dr. King, and all who marched with him and are no longer with us, finally at peace.
This, not tolerance, is what they marched for.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Embarrassing America
In a stump speech yesterday, characterizing Obama’s “tax and spend” policy as dangerous for national security and trying to frighten people into not voting for Obama, McCain went on to say this,
Does this arrogant, doddering, senile old jackass even give a moment’s thought to how the things he says sound to Europeans who hear them?
We’ve had almost eight years of this kind of sneering at our neighbor nations from the leadership of this nation, embarrassing us in the eyes of the world. Do we really want four more?
Update: Thursday morning
I grew up in a Deep South culture; one grandmother was raised on a plantation in Milliken's Bend, LA, the other in Arkansas. I am (what's the word?, not amused) amazed by where all of the talk about the effect of racism in this election is coming from. In all of the discussion of that topic, what state names are mentioned? No, not Alabama, or Georgia, but Ohio and Pennsylvania.
What was the Civil War all about?
Update 2: Thursday morning
McCain is warning us about all those "suspicious credit card donations" that have been made to the Obama campaign, warning us that we "don't really know who all of those people are."
Hey, pea brain, three of those were me. Want to make something of it?
Update 3: Thursday morning
I just read the fourth blog pundit who said words to the effect that after watching Obama's infomercial last night he's going to quit giving unneeded advice to the Obama campaign.
Ha. I made that decision weeks ago.
"At least in the past when European nations took the path of raising taxes and cutting defense, they knew that their security would still be guaranteed by America."
Does this arrogant, doddering, senile old jackass even give a moment’s thought to how the things he says sound to Europeans who hear them?
We’ve had almost eight years of this kind of sneering at our neighbor nations from the leadership of this nation, embarrassing us in the eyes of the world. Do we really want four more?
Update: Thursday morning
I grew up in a Deep South culture; one grandmother was raised on a plantation in Milliken's Bend, LA, the other in Arkansas. I am (what's the word?, not amused) amazed by where all of the talk about the effect of racism in this election is coming from. In all of the discussion of that topic, what state names are mentioned? No, not Alabama, or Georgia, but Ohio and Pennsylvania.
What was the Civil War all about?
Update 2: Thursday morning
McCain is warning us about all those "suspicious credit card donations" that have been made to the Obama campaign, warning us that we "don't really know who all of those people are."
Hey, pea brain, three of those were me. Want to make something of it?
Update 3: Thursday morning
I just read the fourth blog pundit who said words to the effect that after watching Obama's infomercial last night he's going to quit giving unneeded advice to the Obama campaign.
Ha. I made that decision weeks ago.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
On Others' Minds
What concerns do voters have about the candidates? Well, there was a poll taken where people were asked to pick from a list of negatives about the two presidential candidates. "Which one of these items most concerns you," people were asked, "about the candidate?"
For John McCain the "winning" item was that he had picked Sarah Palin as VP and that she was clearly not ready to be president in the event of his incapacitation. No fewer than 34% picked that reply.
For Barack Obama, the "winner" was, "None of the above concern me."
For John McCain the "winning" item was that he had picked Sarah Palin as VP and that she was clearly not ready to be president in the event of his incapacitation. No fewer than 34% picked that reply.
For Barack Obama, the "winner" was, "None of the above concern me."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Last Debate
Just a few thoughts on the (thank God) last debate.
If Joe the plumber is going to give up on his dream of owning his own company because he doesn’t want to have to “pay higher taxes” on the $250,000 profit that the company he plans to buy makes, then there is something seriously wrong with his priorities. Many years ago, when I was injured and out of work for a while, a group of guys were discussing how much they hated paying income taxes. I embarrassed them by observing that I would be delighted to pay income tax, because it would mean that I had income to pay tax on.
This focus on lowering taxes is just plain sick. Do you think that a standing Army to “keep us free,” all of these schools, and roads and bridges and federal programs that we demand are free? They are paid for with taxes, or should be.
McCain is back to saying he can balance the budget in four years. Insane. He has been back and forth on this so many times in the past year it is creating whiplash. He cannot do it without shutting the government down in its entirety.
Neither of them has the courage to say that the deficit as a percentage of overall economy is nowhere the highest it’s ever been, nor that in a severe recession deficit spending is a necessary, even worthwhile thing to do.
Schieffer was a jerk with the way he phrased the question about the “ugly campaign” issue, trying to equate the issue between the candidates. Obama’s attacks have been on McCain’s policies and his present actions. McCain’s attacks have been about actions of 40 years ago, and have been attacks on character and patriotism. The difference is clear cut.
McCain immediately played the victim card, bringing up the remarks of John Lewis. What utter gall and bullshit. I’m delighted that Obama did not dignify that with a response. Obama gave McCain several chances to drop this ugly non-issue, but McCain continued to pound this dead horse deeper into the ground. Not one person outside of McCain’s base, who are all going to vote for him anyway, care one iota about this “issue.”
ACORN threatens to “destroy the fabric of democracy” does it? The real threat is McCain and his cronies using ACORN’s victimization by its employees as a lever to disenfranchise voters. ACORN paid people to register voters, paying them on the basis of number registered. As was inevitable, no few employees faked forms to get money without doing the work, a fact that ACORN duly noted when turning in the forms as required by law. There is no threat to democracy here. “Micky Mouse” is not going to turn up and try to vote illegally. The bogus registrations are for people who do not exist.
McCain’s party is using this “threat to the fabric of democracy” to challenge the registration of legitimate voters. I have, for instance, two middle names. Some databases cannot accommodate that, so in some places I am listed with one middle name and in others with two. On the voter rolls I am listed with two, so if McCain’s party can find a database where I am listed with one middle name they can challenge my registration and prevent me from voting for Barack Obama. (oops)
Who is the real "threat to the fabric of democracy” here?
McCain is still using the excuse that it is slandering Obama because Obama would not join him in the ten town hall meetings “as Kennedy and Goldwater agreed to do before that tragic event in Dallas.” Goldwater only said that it was an interesting idea, he never agreed to it. And McCain’s dishonorable conduct is his own responsibility, not the result of Obama’s decisions.
I’m not going to get into the health care plans. The both stink, but Obama’s stinks quite a lot less than McCain’s does. McCain accused Obama of favoring single payer health care. I only wish he did. Most of America wishes he did.
McCain became utterly incoherent on abortion. He will appoint to SCOTUS based only on qualification, with no litmus test. No litmus test is acceptable, but one of the qualifications is that the applicant favor overturning Roe v. Wade. So the opinion on Roe v. Wade is a qualification not a litmus test. The way McCain gets around problems is not by solving them, it’s by simply redefining terms.
And the sneering “fingerquoted” thing about the health of the woman when talking about the “pro-abortion” position. Pro-abortion? Fortunately, my wife was not in the room at the time, or I would have been dodging flying objects. They would not have been aimed at me, understand, but she is not that good of a shot.
McCain described the school voucher program in Washington. I think this guy is mental, because he favors this program and he described exactly why it is about as thoroughly un-American as it can possibly be. “…there's a certain number, I think it's a thousand and some and some 9,000 parents asked to be eligible for that.” So, 8000 parents were left to send their kids to crumbling, underfunded schools that you are ignoring.
The America that I live in says that all people are created equal, which implies that federal programs must treat all people equally. But you want to provide money to send 1000 kids to private schools and send another 8000 to public schools for which you will provide no funding whatever. What universe do you live in?
McCain wants to take soldiers from the battlefield and send them to our schools as teachers without any training or testing. Do they get to take a shower first, to wash the blood and battle dust off? What is that plan?
He returned to autism in the education portion. He never connected his focus on autism to Sarah Palin’s youngest child directly, but he did make that connection earlier in an indirect manner. Does he think the baby has autism? If he’s talking about autism and not about her baby, he should make that clear, because much of America seems to think that he thinks he’s talking about Palin’s baby.
And again the pundits are saying that McCain “won on points” whatever that means, and the polls are saying that Obama won by very large margins. Pat Buchanan continues to disagree with the polls, insisting that McCain won on points, on style, and that he convinced millions of voters. Um, Pat, the voters who he convinced were already voting for him. They were in bars all over the country chanting “Sarah, Sarah.”
If Joe the plumber is going to give up on his dream of owning his own company because he doesn’t want to have to “pay higher taxes” on the $250,000 profit that the company he plans to buy makes, then there is something seriously wrong with his priorities. Many years ago, when I was injured and out of work for a while, a group of guys were discussing how much they hated paying income taxes. I embarrassed them by observing that I would be delighted to pay income tax, because it would mean that I had income to pay tax on.
This focus on lowering taxes is just plain sick. Do you think that a standing Army to “keep us free,” all of these schools, and roads and bridges and federal programs that we demand are free? They are paid for with taxes, or should be.
McCain is back to saying he can balance the budget in four years. Insane. He has been back and forth on this so many times in the past year it is creating whiplash. He cannot do it without shutting the government down in its entirety.
Neither of them has the courage to say that the deficit as a percentage of overall economy is nowhere the highest it’s ever been, nor that in a severe recession deficit spending is a necessary, even worthwhile thing to do.
Schieffer was a jerk with the way he phrased the question about the “ugly campaign” issue, trying to equate the issue between the candidates. Obama’s attacks have been on McCain’s policies and his present actions. McCain’s attacks have been about actions of 40 years ago, and have been attacks on character and patriotism. The difference is clear cut.
McCain immediately played the victim card, bringing up the remarks of John Lewis. What utter gall and bullshit. I’m delighted that Obama did not dignify that with a response. Obama gave McCain several chances to drop this ugly non-issue, but McCain continued to pound this dead horse deeper into the ground. Not one person outside of McCain’s base, who are all going to vote for him anyway, care one iota about this “issue.”
ACORN threatens to “destroy the fabric of democracy” does it? The real threat is McCain and his cronies using ACORN’s victimization by its employees as a lever to disenfranchise voters. ACORN paid people to register voters, paying them on the basis of number registered. As was inevitable, no few employees faked forms to get money without doing the work, a fact that ACORN duly noted when turning in the forms as required by law. There is no threat to democracy here. “Micky Mouse” is not going to turn up and try to vote illegally. The bogus registrations are for people who do not exist.
McCain’s party is using this “threat to the fabric of democracy” to challenge the registration of legitimate voters. I have, for instance, two middle names. Some databases cannot accommodate that, so in some places I am listed with one middle name and in others with two. On the voter rolls I am listed with two, so if McCain’s party can find a database where I am listed with one middle name they can challenge my registration and prevent me from voting for Barack Obama. (oops)
Who is the real "threat to the fabric of democracy” here?
McCain is still using the excuse that it is slandering Obama because Obama would not join him in the ten town hall meetings “as Kennedy and Goldwater agreed to do before that tragic event in Dallas.” Goldwater only said that it was an interesting idea, he never agreed to it. And McCain’s dishonorable conduct is his own responsibility, not the result of Obama’s decisions.
I’m not going to get into the health care plans. The both stink, but Obama’s stinks quite a lot less than McCain’s does. McCain accused Obama of favoring single payer health care. I only wish he did. Most of America wishes he did.
McCain became utterly incoherent on abortion. He will appoint to SCOTUS based only on qualification, with no litmus test. No litmus test is acceptable, but one of the qualifications is that the applicant favor overturning Roe v. Wade. So the opinion on Roe v. Wade is a qualification not a litmus test. The way McCain gets around problems is not by solving them, it’s by simply redefining terms.
And the sneering “fingerquoted” thing about the health of the woman when talking about the “pro-abortion” position. Pro-abortion? Fortunately, my wife was not in the room at the time, or I would have been dodging flying objects. They would not have been aimed at me, understand, but she is not that good of a shot.
McCain described the school voucher program in Washington. I think this guy is mental, because he favors this program and he described exactly why it is about as thoroughly un-American as it can possibly be. “…there's a certain number, I think it's a thousand and some and some 9,000 parents asked to be eligible for that.” So, 8000 parents were left to send their kids to crumbling, underfunded schools that you are ignoring.
The America that I live in says that all people are created equal, which implies that federal programs must treat all people equally. But you want to provide money to send 1000 kids to private schools and send another 8000 to public schools for which you will provide no funding whatever. What universe do you live in?
McCain wants to take soldiers from the battlefield and send them to our schools as teachers without any training or testing. Do they get to take a shower first, to wash the blood and battle dust off? What is that plan?
He returned to autism in the education portion. He never connected his focus on autism to Sarah Palin’s youngest child directly, but he did make that connection earlier in an indirect manner. Does he think the baby has autism? If he’s talking about autism and not about her baby, he should make that clear, because much of America seems to think that he thinks he’s talking about Palin’s baby.
And again the pundits are saying that McCain “won on points” whatever that means, and the polls are saying that Obama won by very large margins. Pat Buchanan continues to disagree with the polls, insisting that McCain won on points, on style, and that he convinced millions of voters. Um, Pat, the voters who he convinced were already voting for him. They were in bars all over the country chanting “Sarah, Sarah.”
Friday, October 10, 2008
Don't Just Stand There
When the massive “bailout plan” was being rammed through Congress in a frantic, panicked scramble to save America from Armageddon, I plaintively asked, as did others far more knowledgeable than me, “Is this the only possible solution, and is it even the right solution?”
Well, the “free market” has given us the answer to that question, a resounding “Hell no.”
Over Paulson’s objections, a clause was put into the bill to allow the Fed to inject capital into the banks in return for partial ownership, a plan that he adamantly said would not work. Britain has now adopted that plan and strong consensus is building very rapidly here that we’d better do the same. I don’t know who insisted on that clause in the bill, but I’m glad they did.
Reactions to this crisis are interesting, to say the least. I like the way my wife deals with it. “I’m just going to go to work every day until election day. Then I’m going to vote for Obama. Then I’m going to go back to going to work every day.” Sounds like a plan.
McCain’s plan is, in the words of a movie president, “make you afraid of it and tell you who to blame for it.” He and his “female Sancho Panza” are on the campaign trail whipping crowds into a frenzy of hatred and anger by talking about terrorist connections and middle names, and by asking scary questions about origins. Presidential campaigns have never been pretty, but inciting to riot is maybe going one step too far.
Obama is playing the blame game more than I’d like to see him doing, but he is a really canny campaigner. Anyone who can campaign against and beat the Clintons does not need advice from me. He sort of reminds me of Will Smith in Men In Black. “Just chill, I’m on this.” That’s kind of the attitude I want in my leadership.
When things went to shit on my submarine at 400 feet beneath the surface, I did not want my skipper running around screaming and throwing shit against the bulkheads. I kind of needed to be able to look over and see that he was cool. When he was cool it reassured me that we might do what a submarine can do that a surface ship cannot do when submerged, which is go back up to the surface.
(Any ship can dive, you know. Only a submarine can do so repeatedly.)
Regardless of what the right move is, the chances of doing the right thing while in panic mode is vanishingly small. Panic mode is “fight or flight” mode; you either beat something up or you run like hell, what you specifically do not do is think. All of your body chemistry is organized against thinking to facilitate a faster reaction for either fighting or fleeing.
But in a crisis like this one, thinking is precisely what is needed.
The Navy does indeed have the saying that goes, “Don’t just stand there, do something.” The corollary to that is, “Do something, even if it’s wrong.”
Sometimes “standing there” is the right thing; if you’re thinking.
Well, the “free market” has given us the answer to that question, a resounding “Hell no.”
Over Paulson’s objections, a clause was put into the bill to allow the Fed to inject capital into the banks in return for partial ownership, a plan that he adamantly said would not work. Britain has now adopted that plan and strong consensus is building very rapidly here that we’d better do the same. I don’t know who insisted on that clause in the bill, but I’m glad they did.
Reactions to this crisis are interesting, to say the least. I like the way my wife deals with it. “I’m just going to go to work every day until election day. Then I’m going to vote for Obama. Then I’m going to go back to going to work every day.” Sounds like a plan.
McCain’s plan is, in the words of a movie president, “make you afraid of it and tell you who to blame for it.” He and his “female Sancho Panza” are on the campaign trail whipping crowds into a frenzy of hatred and anger by talking about terrorist connections and middle names, and by asking scary questions about origins. Presidential campaigns have never been pretty, but inciting to riot is maybe going one step too far.
Obama is playing the blame game more than I’d like to see him doing, but he is a really canny campaigner. Anyone who can campaign against and beat the Clintons does not need advice from me. He sort of reminds me of Will Smith in Men In Black. “Just chill, I’m on this.” That’s kind of the attitude I want in my leadership.
When things went to shit on my submarine at 400 feet beneath the surface, I did not want my skipper running around screaming and throwing shit against the bulkheads. I kind of needed to be able to look over and see that he was cool. When he was cool it reassured me that we might do what a submarine can do that a surface ship cannot do when submerged, which is go back up to the surface.
(Any ship can dive, you know. Only a submarine can do so repeatedly.)
Regardless of what the right move is, the chances of doing the right thing while in panic mode is vanishingly small. Panic mode is “fight or flight” mode; you either beat something up or you run like hell, what you specifically do not do is think. All of your body chemistry is organized against thinking to facilitate a faster reaction for either fighting or fleeing.
But in a crisis like this one, thinking is precisely what is needed.
The Navy does indeed have the saying that goes, “Don’t just stand there, do something.” The corollary to that is, “Do something, even if it’s wrong.”
Sometimes “standing there” is the right thing; if you’re thinking.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Bradley Effect
Pundits are worried about this issue, named after Los Angeles candidate for mayor who was leading in the polls but unexpectedly lost. The reason seemed to be a number of people who said they were for him, but who in the secrecy of the polling place could not bring themselves to vote for a Black Man.
There are a couple of things that suggest to me that, in this race, that might not such an issue; in part because I do not trust these polls. There are an enormous number of young voters who are newly registered and use cell phones. Cell phone users, those who have no land lines, are not included in polls. In addition, the sampling algorithms do not take into account the large numbers of newly registered voters. We've seen that in the primaries, where polls were wrong a great deal of the time. In fact, they were seldom even close to being right.
I also think there might be some "reverse Bradley" effect. People in Los Angeles would never openly admit racial prejudice, but quite a lot of "Redneck Country" is openly racist and people there would never in a million years publicly admit to supporting a man with skin the color of Barack Obama's. Unemployment and this economy have hit hard there, however, and in the secrecy of the voting booth...
There are a couple of things that suggest to me that, in this race, that might not such an issue; in part because I do not trust these polls. There are an enormous number of young voters who are newly registered and use cell phones. Cell phone users, those who have no land lines, are not included in polls. In addition, the sampling algorithms do not take into account the large numbers of newly registered voters. We've seen that in the primaries, where polls were wrong a great deal of the time. In fact, they were seldom even close to being right.
I also think there might be some "reverse Bradley" effect. People in Los Angeles would never openly admit racial prejudice, but quite a lot of "Redneck Country" is openly racist and people there would never in a million years publicly admit to supporting a man with skin the color of Barack Obama's. Unemployment and this economy have hit hard there, however, and in the secrecy of the voting booth...
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Debate Reaction
If nothing else, I am taking great satisfaction in how disappointed David Gregory of MSNBC has got to be feeling. Gregory thinks that the Obama/Ayers “connection” is the most important thing in today’s news cycle. He hyped it endlessly on his show all day yesterday and claimed that McCain absolutely had to hit Obama with it during the debate. He gleefully predicted that the debate would be “bloody” because McCain would inject that subject repeatedly.
Well, so much for David Gregory.
Rachel Maddow, after the debate, observed that there is something particularly nasty about a campaign which is willing to make scurrilous accusations about an opponent everywhere except to the opponent’s face. I think she makes a very good point. Both McCain and Palin are making vile accusations about Obama and his associations, but when they stand in the man’s presence they are silent on those issues. I call that cowardice.
After the debate Chris Mathews and company were pretty much in stitches over some of the odder moments of the night, but the best moment for me accompanied the “green behind the ears” exchange. As Obama was talking about how he was the novice and McCain the sober and experienced one, McCain was happy as a clam, just too asleep at the switch to realize he was being set up and even interrupting (rudely) the say, “Thank you very much.” And then Obama whacks him in the kisser with, “And this is the man singing songs about bombing Iran,” and so forth.
I thought Obama hit just the right balance on which of McCain’s lies and exaggerations needed to be countered. Some are so egregious that he must refute them, but there are so many that if he tries to counter all of them he will bore and alienate the audience, and he knows that. You could sort of see him thinking things over and deciding that most of them were not worth countering, as they had been debunked so many times that the public already knows they are not true.
The one “idea” which McCain trotted out is one that the conservatives whom he is trying desperately to hang onto in his coalition absolutely hate. That’s the one where the government buys up the failing mortgages at the current amounts and reissues them at the current value of the houses. I hate that one too, but not for the same reason conservatives do.
The lender holds a $500K mortgage on a home worth $300K, so the government pays off that mortgage at the amount owed and reissues it at the lower amount. It looks a lot worse when there are numbers, doesn’t it? The lender just made $200,000 of what is known as “unjust enrichment” and the homeowner has just had an equal amount of debt forgiven. That $200,000 came from the taxpayer.
Right, it is our tax dollars that are “unjustly enriching” those lenders. It is our tax dollars being used to forgive the debt of those borrowers. In what world is it fair for those of us who have maintained responsible loans on our homes, to have our tax money used for those purposes?
In addition of $700 Billion used to bail out Wall Street.
After the debate we got to meet some “undecided voters.” After listening to them, my happiness at the polls showing Obama winning the debate vanished, because those polls came from undecided voters. Who cares what these morons think? None of these people could find their ass if you gave them a mirror on a stick. Chris Mathews asked if it bothered them when the candidate gave a speech instead of answering the question, and the “undecided voter” responded, “Yes, I think we should go get Osama bin Laden regardless of where he is hiding.” They are undecided because they don’t have a brain to decide with.
To hell with it. Obama won because I say he won.
Well, so much for David Gregory.
Rachel Maddow, after the debate, observed that there is something particularly nasty about a campaign which is willing to make scurrilous accusations about an opponent everywhere except to the opponent’s face. I think she makes a very good point. Both McCain and Palin are making vile accusations about Obama and his associations, but when they stand in the man’s presence they are silent on those issues. I call that cowardice.
After the debate Chris Mathews and company were pretty much in stitches over some of the odder moments of the night, but the best moment for me accompanied the “green behind the ears” exchange. As Obama was talking about how he was the novice and McCain the sober and experienced one, McCain was happy as a clam, just too asleep at the switch to realize he was being set up and even interrupting (rudely) the say, “Thank you very much.” And then Obama whacks him in the kisser with, “And this is the man singing songs about bombing Iran,” and so forth.
I thought Obama hit just the right balance on which of McCain’s lies and exaggerations needed to be countered. Some are so egregious that he must refute them, but there are so many that if he tries to counter all of them he will bore and alienate the audience, and he knows that. You could sort of see him thinking things over and deciding that most of them were not worth countering, as they had been debunked so many times that the public already knows they are not true.
The one “idea” which McCain trotted out is one that the conservatives whom he is trying desperately to hang onto in his coalition absolutely hate. That’s the one where the government buys up the failing mortgages at the current amounts and reissues them at the current value of the houses. I hate that one too, but not for the same reason conservatives do.
The lender holds a $500K mortgage on a home worth $300K, so the government pays off that mortgage at the amount owed and reissues it at the lower amount. It looks a lot worse when there are numbers, doesn’t it? The lender just made $200,000 of what is known as “unjust enrichment” and the homeowner has just had an equal amount of debt forgiven. That $200,000 came from the taxpayer.
Right, it is our tax dollars that are “unjustly enriching” those lenders. It is our tax dollars being used to forgive the debt of those borrowers. In what world is it fair for those of us who have maintained responsible loans on our homes, to have our tax money used for those purposes?
In addition of $700 Billion used to bail out Wall Street.
After the debate we got to meet some “undecided voters.” After listening to them, my happiness at the polls showing Obama winning the debate vanished, because those polls came from undecided voters. Who cares what these morons think? None of these people could find their ass if you gave them a mirror on a stick. Chris Mathews asked if it bothered them when the candidate gave a speech instead of answering the question, and the “undecided voter” responded, “Yes, I think we should go get Osama bin Laden regardless of where he is hiding.” They are undecided because they don’t have a brain to decide with.
To hell with it. Obama won because I say he won.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Debate Reaction
Updated: Friday, 2:00pm
Much is being made of the issue the Governor Palin did not answer questions last night, that she provided memorized stump speeches that were frequently non-responsive to the question asked by the moderator. To some degree I’m not sure why that is such a topic of conversation, since that is the norm in politics as we know it today, and John McCain is probably the most masterful practitioner of it on the campaign trail at present. Obama, Biden and all of the candidates who have fallen by the wayside have been practicing the technique at length, though, so I don’t know why we expect Palin to do anything different.
There are a couple of things that make it noteworthy with Palin, though. One difference is that the others don’t answer questions because they don’t want to, while Palin doesn’t answer because she cannot do so, and that introduces a somewhat different dynamic into the evasion. Perhaps a trace of poorly concealed panic.
The other dynamic is that the others sort of glide into the evasion while Palin hits the viewer over the head, hammerlike, with the change of subject. She point blank announces the new topic, “I’m going to talk about taxes,” or just announces that she isn’t going to answer the question, “I may not answer the question the way the moderator…” The others at least pretend they are going along with the question that was asked, but then they are not “mavericks.”
The concept of coming right out and saying that she doesn’t care what we want to know, she is going to tell us what she wants us to know, doesn’t play well with me, but then I’m not a low information voter. I suspect there are plenty who are so charmed by her twinkling and “aw shucks” approach that they are satisfied with the answers to her self-asked questions rather than the ones asked by the moderator.
She managed to hide her Christianist fundamentalism pretty well on the question about gay marriage, although her use of the word “tolerant” grated on me rather badly. She doesn’t accept gays, she tolerates them. Isn’t that big of her?
But her Christainist fundamentalism showed in a brief glimpse when talking about peace in Israel, when she spoke of moving our embassy to Jerusalem. Yikes. I wonder how many people in the Arab world were watching the debate.
She echoed the tired old saw from John McCain about the importance of Iraq in the nonsensical war against terror,
Bin Laden made that statement in December of 2004, almost two years after we invaded Iraq. It was the central front because we were there at the time. If we had not invaded Iraq, Bin Laden would have no interest in that country whatever. Neither would Petraeus, since there would be no combat troops there for him to command.
My other reaction is that most commenters are saying that since she never broke down and babbled senselessly she was a big winner. Here’s where there is such a difference between watching live and simply reading a transcript, because I saw several times that she absolutely did erupt into pure sense-free babbling.
For instance when she was asked about the issue of the role of Vice President. Some commenters reacted to her response as saying that she wanted to expand yet further on the power of the office, beyond that which Cheney has already established. Others said that she was simply endorsing the expanded role already created by Cheney. But read the transcript of what she said,
She actually said nothing at all, other than displaying a considerable lack of knowledge of what the constitution actually says about the office of Vice President. Her personal pronouns need a little work; who is the “we” that will “do what is best” etc? To paraphrase Joe Biden that, ladies and gentlemen, is babbling.
When Gwen Ifill asked about the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons things really turned into chaos. In all fairness, her question could have been phrased more clearly, and I thought it was a pretty dumb question. I interpreted it to mean “At what point would you be willing to drop a nuclear weapon on an enemy?”
Joe Biden didn’t answer that question either, although he did get sidetracked by Palin’s foray into a Civil War general’s insistence that we were winning in Afghanistan, or that we could if McCain were elected, or… Anyway.
Now, read that again and try to tell me that Palin never broke out into senseless babbling. “Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet” is absolutely a palindromism.
Said forwards or said backwards, it makes no sense at all.
Update: Friday, 2:00pm
Ah, yes, this is the quote I was looking for,
Um, hello. Most popular program ever, next to Social Security; Medicare.
Much is being made of the issue the Governor Palin did not answer questions last night, that she provided memorized stump speeches that were frequently non-responsive to the question asked by the moderator. To some degree I’m not sure why that is such a topic of conversation, since that is the norm in politics as we know it today, and John McCain is probably the most masterful practitioner of it on the campaign trail at present. Obama, Biden and all of the candidates who have fallen by the wayside have been practicing the technique at length, though, so I don’t know why we expect Palin to do anything different.
There are a couple of things that make it noteworthy with Palin, though. One difference is that the others don’t answer questions because they don’t want to, while Palin doesn’t answer because she cannot do so, and that introduces a somewhat different dynamic into the evasion. Perhaps a trace of poorly concealed panic.
The other dynamic is that the others sort of glide into the evasion while Palin hits the viewer over the head, hammerlike, with the change of subject. She point blank announces the new topic, “I’m going to talk about taxes,” or just announces that she isn’t going to answer the question, “I may not answer the question the way the moderator…” The others at least pretend they are going along with the question that was asked, but then they are not “mavericks.”
The concept of coming right out and saying that she doesn’t care what we want to know, she is going to tell us what she wants us to know, doesn’t play well with me, but then I’m not a low information voter. I suspect there are plenty who are so charmed by her twinkling and “aw shucks” approach that they are satisfied with the answers to her self-asked questions rather than the ones asked by the moderator.
She managed to hide her Christianist fundamentalism pretty well on the question about gay marriage, although her use of the word “tolerant” grated on me rather badly. She doesn’t accept gays, she tolerates them. Isn’t that big of her?
But her Christainist fundamentalism showed in a brief glimpse when talking about peace in Israel, when she spoke of moving our embassy to Jerusalem. Yikes. I wonder how many people in the Arab world were watching the debate.
She echoed the tired old saw from John McCain about the importance of Iraq in the nonsensical war against terror,
And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the General Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda.
Bin Laden made that statement in December of 2004, almost two years after we invaded Iraq. It was the central front because we were there at the time. If we had not invaded Iraq, Bin Laden would have no interest in that country whatever. Neither would Petraeus, since there would be no combat troops there for him to command.
My other reaction is that most commenters are saying that since she never broke down and babbled senselessly she was a big winner. Here’s where there is such a difference between watching live and simply reading a transcript, because I saw several times that she absolutely did erupt into pure sense-free babbling.
For instance when she was asked about the issue of the role of Vice President. Some commenters reacted to her response as saying that she wanted to expand yet further on the power of the office, beyond that which Cheney has already established. Others said that she was simply endorsing the expanded role already created by Cheney. But read the transcript of what she said,
“Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.”
She actually said nothing at all, other than displaying a considerable lack of knowledge of what the constitution actually says about the office of Vice President. Her personal pronouns need a little work; who is the “we” that will “do what is best” etc? To paraphrase Joe Biden that, ladies and gentlemen, is babbling.
When Gwen Ifill asked about the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons things really turned into chaos. In all fairness, her question could have been phrased more clearly, and I thought it was a pretty dumb question. I interpreted it to mean “At what point would you be willing to drop a nuclear weapon on an enemy?”
Joe Biden didn’t answer that question either, although he did get sidetracked by Palin’s foray into a Civil War general’s insistence that we were winning in Afghanistan, or that we could if McCain were elected, or… Anyway.
IFILL: Governor, on another issue, interventionism, nuclear weapons. What should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?
PALIN: Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.
Now, read that again and try to tell me that Palin never broke out into senseless babbling. “Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet” is absolutely a palindromism.
Said forwards or said backwards, it makes no sense at all.
Update: Friday, 2:00pm
Ah, yes, this is the quote I was looking for,
"...unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."
Um, hello. Most popular program ever, next to Social Security; Medicare.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Trade Mission Exposed
Okay, this Palin thing is getting pretty old by now. It’s kind of like going hunting and shooting, oh I don’t know, maybe dairy cows or something. Not very sporting. But this just cropped up and I could not let it go by.
In the interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin gave as her foreign policy experience with Russia that she had engaged in “trade missions back and forth.” Well, it turns out, to no one’s surprise, that she may have, um, enhanced the truth just a little bit.
Alex Koppelman of the Salon website pursued this question with the governor’s office, but they would not speak to him about it, and the reason is a real side-splitter.
So the state employee can’t talk about matters that occurred in the state, acts that were performed by the governor of the state, events that occurred before the governor was a member of McCain’s election campaign, because the questioner is asking as a result of something he heard in connection with McCain’s campaign. Presumably, if the questioner had asked out of idle curiosity, having had a bolt of inspiration out of the clear blue sky, the state employee would have been able to answer the question.
I wonder if CBS and Katie Couric know that she is "part of Palin's campaign for the vice-presidency" and how they feel about that.
In the interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin gave as her foreign policy experience with Russia that she had engaged in “trade missions back and forth.” Well, it turns out, to no one’s surprise, that she may have, um, enhanced the truth just a little bit.
Alex Koppelman of the Salon website pursued this question with the governor’s office, but they would not speak to him about it, and the reason is a real side-splitter.
Morgan said she could not legally discuss any trade missions with me because she's a state employee and I had first heard this claim through the Couric interview, which was part of Palin's campaign for the vice-presidency.
So the state employee can’t talk about matters that occurred in the state, acts that were performed by the governor of the state, events that occurred before the governor was a member of McCain’s election campaign, because the questioner is asking as a result of something he heard in connection with McCain’s campaign. Presumably, if the questioner had asked out of idle curiosity, having had a bolt of inspiration out of the clear blue sky, the state employee would have been able to answer the question.
I wonder if CBS and Katie Couric know that she is "part of Palin's campaign for the vice-presidency" and how they feel about that.
The Unnoticed Lie
Toward the end of the debate, John McCain said the following, with the emphasis added my me,
The first underlined part of that statement can be considered true only if you consider a vigorous and unrelenting effort to obstruct having them found as "resolving the issue."
As the families of the missing soldiers came to Washington to seek help in finding out what had happened to their loved ones, what had happened to their fathers and their sons, what they got from John McCain was not an "effort to resolve" the issue, what they got was open and angry hostility. McCain's attitude on the issue raised the ire of VietNam veterans groups to the degree that they began calling him the "Manchurian Senator."
As to the second underlined part, I think he's trying to sound noble with that, like allowing VietNam vets to finally be reach some sort of inner peace as the two nations reach national peace. The only problem is that VietNam veterans were pretty much united in their opposition to having this done, and when he espoused that cause they felt that McCain had betrayed them and that he was reopening old wounds. When vets confronted him he attacked them because they had not gone through as much hardship as he had, hadn't suffered like he had, which, of course, didn't make them like him any better.
The IAVA and The Disabled Vets of America will both disagree with his earlier statement,
I'm not going to bother with his voting record in the Senate over the past twenty-six years; it's well known and unrelentingly hostile to veterans' care. But veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan should take some comfort,
They are not the first veterans to be betrayed by John Sidney 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.
The first underlined part of that statement can be considered true only if you consider a vigorous and unrelenting effort to obstruct having them found as "resolving the issue."
As the families of the missing soldiers came to Washington to seek help in finding out what had happened to their loved ones, what had happened to their fathers and their sons, what they got from John McCain was not an "effort to resolve" the issue, what they got was open and angry hostility. McCain's attitude on the issue raised the ire of VietNam veterans groups to the degree that they began calling him the "Manchurian Senator."
As to the second underlined part, I think he's trying to sound noble with that, like allowing VietNam vets to finally be reach some sort of inner peace as the two nations reach national peace. The only problem is that VietNam veterans were pretty much united in their opposition to having this done, and when he espoused that cause they felt that McCain had betrayed them and that he was reopening old wounds. When vets confronted him he attacked them because they had not gone through as much hardship as he had, hadn't suffered like he had, which, of course, didn't make them like him any better.
The IAVA and The Disabled Vets of America will both disagree with his earlier statement,
I know the veterans. I know them well. And I know that they know that I'll take care of them. And I've been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans.And I love them. And I'll take care of them. And they know that I'll take care of them.
I'm not going to bother with his voting record in the Senate over the past twenty-six years; it's well known and unrelentingly hostile to veterans' care. But veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan should take some comfort,
They are not the first veterans to be betrayed by John Sidney McCain.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Policy Advisors
There have been several times that pundits on the news shows have noted that Obama seems slow to respond to a new form of attack by the opposing campaign (first Clinton and now McCain), but that once he does respond the response is a measured and effective one. We’re in the midst of one of those cycles now. The McCain campaign has unleashed Palin along with a new blizzard of lies, Obama does not seem to be responding much, and Democrats are freaking out about the impending loss of the election.
First let me say that, to me, a deliberative process that creates a measured and effective response seems to be a pretty good way to run a country, and is therefor a very good reason to vote for Obama.
As to the time it takes him to arrive at a response? Well, this is only a political campaign; he has the luxury of being able to take his time, so he takes it. He takes the time to look at the wide view and makes what is called an “informed decision.”
During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy spent many hours and, at times, days conferring with advisors and sometimes calling in additional advisors before making decisions as how to respond to Soviet moves. That crisis turned out okay, and it did so, in part, because Kennedy was deliberative in his manner and sought input from others before deciding how to deal with it.
McCain is an ex-fighter pilot, a man of action, a “see it now, kill it now” kind of man. His approach to leadership is that he knows all there is to know about everything. His response to a crisis is along the lines of, “Do something now, even if might be the wrong thing.”
He reinforces success, but he doesn’t learn from failure. In Iraq he is so buoyed by what he sees as the success of the six-month “surge” in reducing violence on a small scale, that he cannot see the abject failure of the five-year overall war in reducing violence and danger worldwide.
Obsidian Wings had a guest post yesterday who made this point at length and in a more scholarly way than I can. Here’s an excerpt, but you should really go read the whole thing for yourself.
Like that guest poster, the pick of Sarah Palin as running mate would have swung my choice to Obama if it had not already been there. I fully agree with the person who said that Palin “doesn’t even belong in Washington, let alone in the White House,” but that is not the point.
What the pick says about McCain is utterly frightening. The idea that one man will be making decisions on the level of missiles in Cuba, out of his own brain and without the advice of others, absolutely terrifies me.
First let me say that, to me, a deliberative process that creates a measured and effective response seems to be a pretty good way to run a country, and is therefor a very good reason to vote for Obama.
As to the time it takes him to arrive at a response? Well, this is only a political campaign; he has the luxury of being able to take his time, so he takes it. He takes the time to look at the wide view and makes what is called an “informed decision.”
During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy spent many hours and, at times, days conferring with advisors and sometimes calling in additional advisors before making decisions as how to respond to Soviet moves. That crisis turned out okay, and it did so, in part, because Kennedy was deliberative in his manner and sought input from others before deciding how to deal with it.
McCain is an ex-fighter pilot, a man of action, a “see it now, kill it now” kind of man. His approach to leadership is that he knows all there is to know about everything. His response to a crisis is along the lines of, “Do something now, even if might be the wrong thing.”
He reinforces success, but he doesn’t learn from failure. In Iraq he is so buoyed by what he sees as the success of the six-month “surge” in reducing violence on a small scale, that he cannot see the abject failure of the five-year overall war in reducing violence and danger worldwide.
Obsidian Wings had a guest post yesterday who made this point at length and in a more scholarly way than I can. Here’s an excerpt, but you should really go read the whole thing for yourself.
On Talk of the Nation earlier this week, Ted Koppel asked Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s main foreign policy guy to explain how McCain’s foreign policy staff was set up. Koppel prefaced the question by explaining that Obama has a core team of five or six advisors and then a couple hundred other experts who can be called upon as needed. Scheunemann answered that McCain, doesn’t have the same needs as Obama because he has 40 years in the military and Senate and is already “intimately familiar” with foreign policy issues. He actually said that “John McCain needs foreign policy advisors like Tiger Woods needs a golf coach.”
Like that guest poster, the pick of Sarah Palin as running mate would have swung my choice to Obama if it had not already been there. I fully agree with the person who said that Palin “doesn’t even belong in Washington, let alone in the White House,” but that is not the point.
What the pick says about McCain is utterly frightening. The idea that one man will be making decisions on the level of missiles in Cuba, out of his own brain and without the advice of others, absolutely terrifies me.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
McCain is speaking
and he just started on his "I was blessed with misfortune" and "served with heros" story about being a pow. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. Did you know he was a pow? If you didn't know or haven't heard the story, I have it on tape and can send it to you. As I said, it makes me vomit, but...
Up until now I simply didn't know what the hell he was babbling about. Now that I know, I wish I didn't.
His speech was preceeded by a video of him being a pow, and that was preceeded by his wife telling the same freaking story, so that makes three times now in one night we have heard the pos pow story in its entirety in one night.
I think the audience has all died. Even when they are standing and cheering they look bored out of their gourds. Except Sarah Palin. I think she's about to have an orgasm. That would embarrass Cindy McCain, who is sitting right beside her and looks slightly less bored than the rest of the audience. Her smile is 4% more authentic than her husband's but significantly more frequent.
This live blogging is cool. I just turned the sound off; vast improvement. Oh, nope, he's still speaking. I just turned off the tv altogether. Much better, but so much for the live blogging. Good night.
Up until now I simply didn't know what the hell he was babbling about. Now that I know, I wish I didn't.
His speech was preceeded by a video of him being a pow, and that was preceeded by his wife telling the same freaking story, so that makes three times now in one night we have heard the pos pow story in its entirety in one night.
I think the audience has all died. Even when they are standing and cheering they look bored out of their gourds. Except Sarah Palin. I think she's about to have an orgasm. That would embarrass Cindy McCain, who is sitting right beside her and looks slightly less bored than the rest of the audience. Her smile is 4% more authentic than her husband's but significantly more frequent.
This live blogging is cool. I just turned the sound off; vast improvement. Oh, nope, he's still speaking. I just turned off the tv altogether. Much better, but so much for the live blogging. Good night.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
"Troopergate" & McCain
Let’s assume that the trooper is every bit the heinous beast that certain parties want to make him out to be, and that Sarah Palin’s motives are as pure as the driven snow. (Heh, apt enough.) I don’t for a moment assume either to be the case, but let’s assume them. That still leaves the fact that at the time John McCain selected her as his running mate there was a charge pending against Sarah Palin for abuse of the power of her office, and that the investigation had not yet been resolved.
John McCain was aware of that unresolved charge of abuse of the power of her office and he did not care.
Let’s go back now the “The Keating Five.” I lived in Arizona at the time. Everyone I knew was certain that McCain was as guilty as the other four and we were all astounded when he “got off.” He swore that he had “learned his lesson,” but there is plenty of evidence that the lesson he learned was to be sure that no mechanism for the investigation of Congressional breaches of ethics and abuse of power was ever allowed to become established. And to this day, none has.
McCain has pressured the FCC on behalf of campaign contributors repeatedly, and whenever the subject comes up he starts talking about his experience as a POW and the media immediately changes the subject.
So the charge of Sarah Palin’s abuse of the power of her office did not bother him in the least. To him, that is simply the normal way of doing government. It simply never crossed his mind to think that the charge might be a problem. As we say in the software industry, to him
Abuse of power is not a bug, it’s a feature.
John McCain was aware of that unresolved charge of abuse of the power of her office and he did not care.
Let’s go back now the “The Keating Five.” I lived in Arizona at the time. Everyone I knew was certain that McCain was as guilty as the other four and we were all astounded when he “got off.” He swore that he had “learned his lesson,” but there is plenty of evidence that the lesson he learned was to be sure that no mechanism for the investigation of Congressional breaches of ethics and abuse of power was ever allowed to become established. And to this day, none has.
McCain has pressured the FCC on behalf of campaign contributors repeatedly, and whenever the subject comes up he starts talking about his experience as a POW and the media immediately changes the subject.
So the charge of Sarah Palin’s abuse of the power of her office did not bother him in the least. To him, that is simply the normal way of doing government. It simply never crossed his mind to think that the charge might be a problem. As we say in the software industry, to him
Abuse of power is not a bug, it’s a feature.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Split Personalities
You know all the times that McCain has said things like “I didn’t say that” and has been confronted with a YouTube clip of himself saying precisely what he just claimed he didn’t say? One suspects that his inability to use a computer has resulted in an inability to comprehend that YouTube exists.
It would seem that living in Alaska has a similar effect. Sarah Palin introduced herself to the nation on the day of her selection as McCain’s running mate with an easily refuted lie.
That was a lie. It was not an exaggeration, or any kind of shading of the truth, it was a flat out, unvarnished lie.
She did not “flip-flop” on that bridge, either, as might seem to be indicated by this statement, made during her campaign for governor in October, 2006,
She is expressing her support for earmarks in general with that statement, more about that in a moment, but she is not expressing support for the “Bridge to Nowhere” because that bridge plan did not exist as far as Congress was concerned at the time she made that statement. The plan was cancelled in November 2005, and it was not cancelled by anyone in Alaska, it was cancelled by the U.S. Congress.
When the bridge plan was cancelled the money was left intact, so Alaska was free to spend it any way they wished.
Having taken office in December 2006, Sarah Palin was never within thirteen months of having anything whatever to do with the Bridge to Nowhere plan. She did spend the earmark money that was left when the bridge was cancelled by the federal government without her intervention. The bridge was still one of the options, but Congress was out of the picture and didn't need telling anything. She not only didn't cancel the bridge, she took the money.
You can read the details at the Daily Howler.
As Governor of Alaska she was a big champion of earmark spending by the federal government, and even made trips to Washington to help secure more earmarked dollars for her state. Now that she is running for federal office, she is suddenly against earmark spending.
Remember Kerry at the Dem convention, saying the Senator McCain should finish the debate with Candidate McCain?
Maybe Governor Palin should debate Candidate Palin.
Except we know that all four of them lie.
It would seem that living in Alaska has a similar effect. Sarah Palin introduced herself to the nation on the day of her selection as McCain’s running mate with an easily refuted lie.
“I told Congress, ‘Thanks but no thanks’ on that Bridge to Nowhere.”
That was a lie. It was not an exaggeration, or any kind of shading of the truth, it was a flat out, unvarnished lie.
She did not “flip-flop” on that bridge, either, as might seem to be indicated by this statement, made during her campaign for governor in October, 2006,
“I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the State of Alaska that our Congressional delegations worked hard for.”
She is expressing her support for earmarks in general with that statement, more about that in a moment, but she is not expressing support for the “Bridge to Nowhere” because that bridge plan did not exist as far as Congress was concerned at the time she made that statement. The plan was cancelled in November 2005, and it was not cancelled by anyone in Alaska, it was cancelled by the U.S. Congress.
When the bridge plan was cancelled the money was left intact, so Alaska was free to spend it any way they wished.
Having taken office in December 2006, Sarah Palin was never within thirteen months of having anything whatever to do with the Bridge to Nowhere plan. She did spend the earmark money that was left when the bridge was cancelled by the federal government without her intervention. The bridge was still one of the options, but Congress was out of the picture and didn't need telling anything. She not only didn't cancel the bridge, she took the money.
You can read the details at the Daily Howler.
As Governor of Alaska she was a big champion of earmark spending by the federal government, and even made trips to Washington to help secure more earmarked dollars for her state. Now that she is running for federal office, she is suddenly against earmark spending.
Remember Kerry at the Dem convention, saying the Senator McCain should finish the debate with Candidate McCain?
Maybe Governor Palin should debate Candidate Palin.
Except we know that all four of them lie.
Tepid Support
It seems that John McCain needs to spend more time getting to know his present running mate, since he has a far different take on her knowledge and experience of matters regarding national security than she does herself. This is what he said on Fox news this Sunday, emphasis added by me,
This is from an interview conducted at the time of the surge that McCain suggest she supported,
The only “support” in that quote is, “and while I support our president.” That is usually a preface to adding a disagreement or disclaimer of some sort, and so it is here, “I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe.”
That doesn’t sound very supportive to me.
Since that date and prior to her selection as his running mate, can anyone point me to a quote from her supporting the surge, acknowledging that the surge has been a success, claiming progress or success in Iraq? Anything? Anybody?
We have all of this testimony as to her judgement from McCain, after her selection. Not one word from him or anyone else prior to her selection. Not one single quote or article from prior to her selection documenting this judgement and knowledge on matters of grave national importance. Just John McCain's unsupported word. And, of course, hers.
If you have any such pre-selection quote, please add it in comments.
"She knows that the surge worked and succeeded and she supported that," McCain continued. "Senator Obama still, still to this day, refuses to acknowledge that the surge has succeeded. She's been commander-in-chief of the Alaska Guard that has served back and back. In fact, as you know, she's got a son who's getting ready to go. But she's had the judgment on these issues that Senator Obama, he's had all the wrong judgments. Governor Palin understands these issues, and she understands the challenges that we face."
This is from an interview conducted at the time of the surge that McCain suggest she supported,
Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?
Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.
The only “support” in that quote is, “and while I support our president.” That is usually a preface to adding a disagreement or disclaimer of some sort, and so it is here, “I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe.”
That doesn’t sound very supportive to me.
Since that date and prior to her selection as his running mate, can anyone point me to a quote from her supporting the surge, acknowledging that the surge has been a success, claiming progress or success in Iraq? Anything? Anybody?
We have all of this testimony as to her judgement from McCain, after her selection. Not one word from him or anyone else prior to her selection. Not one single quote or article from prior to her selection documenting this judgement and knowledge on matters of grave national importance. Just John McCain's unsupported word. And, of course, hers.
If you have any such pre-selection quote, please add it in comments.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Selection Sagacity
A good friend told me not long ago that he was reserving judgement on the presidential race until the running mates were chosen; that the choices would tell him more about the candidates, and he would choose then. He made, I think, a good point. My political inclination is more, shall we say, sharply defined than his, but I have been waiting to see what those choices would tell me as well.
What the choices “said to me” was a very mixed bag.
Obama’s choice tells me that he believes the Vice President must be qualified in all respects to serve as President, unlike McCain with his choice.
Obama clearly wanted someone who could serve as a governing partner, who could add wisdom and counsel and assist him in governing the nation. In that respect, McCain’s choice is a bit mystifying. While Palin has a reputation as a reformer and a maverick, it is a short and untested reputation and it’s doubtful in the extreme that she would be able to swing any real weight in Washington if elected.
Advantage Obama so far, but things go downhill after that, because then we have to look at the degree to which the choices reflect the political inclinations of the candidates.
Does Obama really embrace the governing philosophy reflected by Biden’s not only voting for but driving the most recent Bankruptcy Bill? And it was Biden who served as the initiator of bipartisanship on the Patriot Act. Just to name two cases of him not only supporting, but serving as leader of anti-populist measures. That conflicts badly with Obama’s populist message.
By contrast Palin does appear to be a real populist; steering funds away from corporate causes and into projects with benefits to the general public, which actually makes her a rather odd pick for a Republican. The caution is that we don’t really know her yet. Politicians always look good their first year or so, busily carrying out campaign promises and clearing the decks for later when the media will be less attentive, so how much of that is for real. It’s a rather thin resume, but to the degree that McCain picked her for this reason, that reflects well on him.
And forget this “troopergate” nonsense. Even if true, Washington politicians do worse than before breakfast just to warm up. A Washington reporter would not even dignify that story with a “pfffft.”
Biden’s foreign policy credentials are much touted, but they are only marginally less warlike than John McCain’s. He adds to Obama’s already stated intention to increase military spending, despite the fact the we already spend more than all of the rest of the world combined, and that we already have the largest deficit in our history. Like Obama, he wants more war in Afghanistan and wants a warlike posture facing Iran.
It does not seem that McCain picked Palin for her military expertise or views because Palin, bless her heart, seems to think guns are only for the purpose of shooting moose. Her only stated policy on Iraq is that she thinks we should have an exit strategy. She has no known position on Afghanistan or Iran.
Joe Biden is a Roman Catholic, but if he has any theory of government that relates to his religion I have yet to hear it. He is pro-choice based on minimizing the government’s ability to interfere in individual rights. He opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions and the provision of benefits to same-sex couples. I believe Obama holds the same views.
Palin does have religious positions, and they were a stated part of McCain’s reason for picking her. Abortion should be outlawed with no exception, and contraception of all types should not be allowed even between married couples. She opposes gay marriage and civil unions for gay couples. She opposes extending benefits to same-sex partners.
She has position on global warming: it is not man-made or contributed to by the actions of man, and no actions should be taken to curb it. Polar bears should not be placed on the endangered species list because she believes they are not endangered. Evolution is just a theory, no better of a theory than creationism, which is the true theory that should be taught in schools
To the degree that those extreme fundamentalist religious views reflect in any way the manner in which John McCain intends to govern, the selection of Sarah Palin utterly freaks me out. That makes him George W. Bush on steroids. The very thought that he embraces her religious beliefs as a governing theory chills me.
And Vice President… We should never let anyone with that extreme set of religious beliefs get anywhere near the helm of our government, let alone within a 75-year-old heartbeat of it.
What the choices “said to me” was a very mixed bag.
Obama’s choice tells me that he believes the Vice President must be qualified in all respects to serve as President, unlike McCain with his choice.
Obama clearly wanted someone who could serve as a governing partner, who could add wisdom and counsel and assist him in governing the nation. In that respect, McCain’s choice is a bit mystifying. While Palin has a reputation as a reformer and a maverick, it is a short and untested reputation and it’s doubtful in the extreme that she would be able to swing any real weight in Washington if elected.
Advantage Obama so far, but things go downhill after that, because then we have to look at the degree to which the choices reflect the political inclinations of the candidates.
Does Obama really embrace the governing philosophy reflected by Biden’s not only voting for but driving the most recent Bankruptcy Bill? And it was Biden who served as the initiator of bipartisanship on the Patriot Act. Just to name two cases of him not only supporting, but serving as leader of anti-populist measures. That conflicts badly with Obama’s populist message.
By contrast Palin does appear to be a real populist; steering funds away from corporate causes and into projects with benefits to the general public, which actually makes her a rather odd pick for a Republican. The caution is that we don’t really know her yet. Politicians always look good their first year or so, busily carrying out campaign promises and clearing the decks for later when the media will be less attentive, so how much of that is for real. It’s a rather thin resume, but to the degree that McCain picked her for this reason, that reflects well on him.
And forget this “troopergate” nonsense. Even if true, Washington politicians do worse than before breakfast just to warm up. A Washington reporter would not even dignify that story with a “pfffft.”
Biden’s foreign policy credentials are much touted, but they are only marginally less warlike than John McCain’s. He adds to Obama’s already stated intention to increase military spending, despite the fact the we already spend more than all of the rest of the world combined, and that we already have the largest deficit in our history. Like Obama, he wants more war in Afghanistan and wants a warlike posture facing Iran.
It does not seem that McCain picked Palin for her military expertise or views because Palin, bless her heart, seems to think guns are only for the purpose of shooting moose. Her only stated policy on Iraq is that she thinks we should have an exit strategy. She has no known position on Afghanistan or Iran.
Joe Biden is a Roman Catholic, but if he has any theory of government that relates to his religion I have yet to hear it. He is pro-choice based on minimizing the government’s ability to interfere in individual rights. He opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions and the provision of benefits to same-sex couples. I believe Obama holds the same views.
Palin does have religious positions, and they were a stated part of McCain’s reason for picking her. Abortion should be outlawed with no exception, and contraception of all types should not be allowed even between married couples. She opposes gay marriage and civil unions for gay couples. She opposes extending benefits to same-sex partners.
She has position on global warming: it is not man-made or contributed to by the actions of man, and no actions should be taken to curb it. Polar bears should not be placed on the endangered species list because she believes they are not endangered. Evolution is just a theory, no better of a theory than creationism, which is the true theory that should be taught in schools
To the degree that those extreme fundamentalist religious views reflect in any way the manner in which John McCain intends to govern, the selection of Sarah Palin utterly freaks me out. That makes him George W. Bush on steroids. The very thought that he embraces her religious beliefs as a governing theory chills me.
And Vice President… We should never let anyone with that extreme set of religious beliefs get anywhere near the helm of our government, let alone within a 75-year-old heartbeat of it.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Flip Flop
Sarah Palin in October, 2006, regarding funding for the “bridge to nowhere,
and
So, less than two years ago she not only supported funding for the bridge, she supported earmarking as a method of obtaining the funding.
Sarah Palin in August, 2008,
Clearly her principles of government are a good match for McCain.
"I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for."
and
"Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
So, less than two years ago she not only supported funding for the bridge, she supported earmarking as a method of obtaining the funding.
Sarah Palin in August, 2008,
"I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."
Clearly her principles of government are a good match for McCain.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Stunning Selection
Updated below: Saturday morning
I mean that literally. I mean, look at her. John McCain is obviously still hung up on beauty queens. This lady could make a freight train follow her down a dirt road. A muddy, unused, one lane dirt road.
Cindy McCain can’t be happy about this pick. When you are the former younger woman and the present wife, you are not happy when another younger woman shows up. Cindy usually has the “basic botox” look, so it isn’t easy to tell, but she looks to me to be somewhat less than ecstatic.
Sarah Palin’s qualifications seem to be limited to two things; she is rabidly “anti-choice,” and she is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. (The first is usually known by Republicans as “pro-life,” of course, but I like my term for it better.) She has no experience in foreign policy and has expressed a sincere disinterest in it.
So I guess if McCain is elected to office and incapacitated, this nation will just disengage from the world at large and devote itself to hunting down abortion doctors. When that is completed we will start searching dark alleyways for guys with coat hangers. If you don’t know what that means it’s because you are young and grew up in a free country, and I’m truly happy for you.
She’s presently the subject of a legislative investigation for the abuse of the power of her office, so she fits right in with John McCain’s agenda.
But most of all, her selection stunningly illustrates how McCain will continue the Bush policy of politics over governance. Sarah Palin was selected for her politics and for the purpose of political gimmickry, and not for the actual qualifications that she brings to the nomination.
The office of Vice President exists for one purpose and one purpose only; to assume the Presidency in the event that the President is incapacitated. The person nominated to the position must have one qualification, and only one qualification; that person must be qualified to be President.
Sarah Palin was chosen because she is female, to cater to disaffected Clinton backers; because she is “anti-choice,” to cater to the religious base, and because she is “pro-gun,” to cater to the rest of the base. She was chosen for those reasons despite the clear fact that she does not have the experience to qualify her to serve as President under any circumstances, and especially not at a time when the nation would be in turmoil due to the sudden loss of its sitting Chief Executive.
John McCain demonstrated his lack of leadership and qualification to serve as this nation’s President by making this choice.
Update: Saturday morning
The "anti-choice" crowd oppose abortion even when the woman's life is at risk. They will allow a woman to die, and the fetus with her, to assure that the fetus is not actively terminated. One life for sure, possibly two, lost; the one loss certainly needless. And they oppose contraception.
That's not "pro-life."
I mean that literally. I mean, look at her. John McCain is obviously still hung up on beauty queens. This lady could make a freight train follow her down a dirt road. A muddy, unused, one lane dirt road.
Cindy McCain can’t be happy about this pick. When you are the former younger woman and the present wife, you are not happy when another younger woman shows up. Cindy usually has the “basic botox” look, so it isn’t easy to tell, but she looks to me to be somewhat less than ecstatic.
Sarah Palin’s qualifications seem to be limited to two things; she is rabidly “anti-choice,” and she is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. (The first is usually known by Republicans as “pro-life,” of course, but I like my term for it better.) She has no experience in foreign policy and has expressed a sincere disinterest in it.
So I guess if McCain is elected to office and incapacitated, this nation will just disengage from the world at large and devote itself to hunting down abortion doctors. When that is completed we will start searching dark alleyways for guys with coat hangers. If you don’t know what that means it’s because you are young and grew up in a free country, and I’m truly happy for you.
She’s presently the subject of a legislative investigation for the abuse of the power of her office, so she fits right in with John McCain’s agenda.
But most of all, her selection stunningly illustrates how McCain will continue the Bush policy of politics over governance. Sarah Palin was selected for her politics and for the purpose of political gimmickry, and not for the actual qualifications that she brings to the nomination.
The office of Vice President exists for one purpose and one purpose only; to assume the Presidency in the event that the President is incapacitated. The person nominated to the position must have one qualification, and only one qualification; that person must be qualified to be President.
Sarah Palin was chosen because she is female, to cater to disaffected Clinton backers; because she is “anti-choice,” to cater to the religious base, and because she is “pro-gun,” to cater to the rest of the base. She was chosen for those reasons despite the clear fact that she does not have the experience to qualify her to serve as President under any circumstances, and especially not at a time when the nation would be in turmoil due to the sudden loss of its sitting Chief Executive.
John McCain demonstrated his lack of leadership and qualification to serve as this nation’s President by making this choice.
Update: Saturday morning
The "anti-choice" crowd oppose abortion even when the woman's life is at risk. They will allow a woman to die, and the fetus with her, to assure that the fetus is not actively terminated. One life for sure, possibly two, lost; the one loss certainly needless. And they oppose contraception.
That's not "pro-life."
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Other Clinton Speech
Okay, who are you and what did you do with Bill Clinton?
Last week it was, “Well, it depends on what you mean by…” Last night in Denver we get this unrestrained,
Everything that Hillary failed to do on Tuesday, Bill did last night. He provided the personal endorsement, the character reference, the readiness and all. He named Obama as his worthy successor, assured the party that Obama would do an outstanding job, and wished Obama well.
So, let’s see the McCain campaign use any part of that for their nefarious purposes. I can see them sitting in their Denver tent last night, hopefully poised over their Macintoshes twirling their mustasches and finally leaning back and sighing, “Curses, foiled at last.”
Last week it was, “Well, it depends on what you mean by…” Last night in Denver we get this unrestrained,
Everything I learned in my eight years as President and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job.
…
Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States.
Everything that Hillary failed to do on Tuesday, Bill did last night. He provided the personal endorsement, the character reference, the readiness and all. He named Obama as his worthy successor, assured the party that Obama would do an outstanding job, and wished Obama well.
So, let’s see the McCain campaign use any part of that for their nefarious purposes. I can see them sitting in their Denver tent last night, hopefully poised over their Macintoshes twirling their mustasches and finally leaning back and sighing, “Curses, foiled at last.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)