The McCain-Palin Deceit Talk Express puts me in mind of the great line CIA office agent Robert Redford utters to CIA director Cliff Robertson in Sydney Pollack's "Three Days of the Condor" (though it was first said by the husband in Sydney Pollack's "The Slender Thread" of ten years earlier):

"What is it with you people; you think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?"

Please use it Barack and Joe; it'll work for you.

Hi there, come on in.  Sox, I know you're glad to be home but please get down.  Forgive her, she can't help it - she missed you all so much!  So did I, if you don't mind my saying so.  I know!  I think so too, in fact he may be around here somewhere.  I'll take all the help I can get.  Thank you, Matt, for respecting the streak. 

What?  No!  I didn't hear about that!  Tell me more!  I've really been gone too long, words have floated overhead and their meaning lost in the middle.  What's the bottom line?

Democrats have to trust Obama.  They want him to get aggressive and sling the mud, but we all have to trust the game plan.  What do they do about Palin?  They have to neutralize her and make her irrelevant.  If they try to crush her, they hurt the chances of a victory.  What do they do about the lies?  They have to call them out and get the media to do the heavy lifting.  I think we are seeing that the media is ready and willing to do the heavy lifting.

 

Sometime in the summer, Obama’s people must have decided to play small ball in the general election.  This is what small ball looks like:

 

1. Pound the economy.

2. McCain=Bush.

3. Pound the economy some more.

4. Work the ground game.

 

Josh Marshall wrote about the ground game a few days ago.  It’s about going precinct by precinct in the 18 battleground states (like what Tim Bean’s post about volunteering is talking about) Call every single registered voter, work voter registration in Democratic precincts, get out the vote on Election Day, monitor ballot box shenanigans.  It’s not pretty and it's not glamorous, but despite a lot of analysis that Kerry lost because of swiftboating, a lot of pros think it was Karl Rove’s ground game that tipped the balance, especially in Ohio.

 

Given this year’s political climate, I think small ball has a 75% chance of winning something like 280-300 electoral votes.  I’m sure Plouffe and his crew have the odds pretty precisely calculated, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 80-85%  It’s a high percentage, low risk, small victory strategy.

 

Steve Schmidt knows this, of course, which is why he is trying to bait Obama into abandoning small ball and start attacking.  Attacking is a home run strategy.  Imagine that Obama goes all out and tries to prove that Palin is a fraud, that McCain will say and do anything, including lie, cheat and steal (we’ve caught him lying—but we are going to see the other two before the cycle is done, believe me).  This strategy is low percentage, high risk, high reward.  I’m thinking it has 55% chance of winning 350+ electoral votes.  Sounds good until you realize that you’ve just decreased your chances of winning by about a third.

 

I’ll take 75% chance at 280 EV over 55% chance at 350 EV any day of the week.

 

So Obama’s Palin strategy must be to neutralize Palin, neutralize the lies, and get back on message.  I think he’s been doing that.  On the lies, we have to be ecstatic at how the media is picking up on it.  That is why Schmidt tried to demonize the media from the beginning.  They knew the media would eventually wake up and start uncovering all the dirt and lies. It’s really unbelievable how cynical and devoid of shame McCain’s people are.  That is, until you realize that McCain’s people these days are essentially Bush’s people, and it all makes sense.  McCain’s old crew are in the corner throwing up.

 

On how to neutralize Palin, I think Obama’s people are counting on a few things:

 

1. Historically, voters focus on the top of the ticket.  The bump from an exciting VP pick usually fades.  E.J. Dionne said on NPR last night that the Geraldine Ferraro pick in 1984 helped Mondale tie Reagan in the polls (which is so incredibly unbelievable, I want to go look it up), before fading to an 18 point loss on Election Day.  If Palin follows history and fades, then Obama vs. McCain is a matchup that favors the Dems.  All Reagan had to do was stop Ferraro’s momentum, and the focus came back to the top of the ticket.  So how do you stop Palin’s momentum? …

 

2. Ferraro was stopped when her husband refused to release his tax returns.  That precipitated a feeding frenzy where people stopped talking about the historic moment and started asking what she was hiding.  So it took a scandal and the press took it from there.  If scandal was key to stopping Ferraro’s momentum, then Dems should be dancing in the streets.  The only danger is that the press would be paralyzed trying to decide which Palin scandal to go after first.

 

3. Give her enough rope and she’s going to hang herself.  She's got a big mouth.  Bigger than Biden's, and that's saying something.

 

It’s tough to sit back and let nature take its course, but maybe that’s what Obama has to do with Palin.  I think he’s been really good at directing the media where to go.  He says Palin was “for it before she was against it”, and suddenly the media is chasing the Bridge to Nowhere.  He uses the L-word, and suddenly the media is willing to say McCain is lying.  He uses what I think is the pitch perfect phrase “phony outrage” and suddenly the lipstick BS is part of McCain’s lying portfolio.  That’s really all Obama can do.  If he goes balls to the wall to take down Palin and McCain’s lies, all that does is give Schmidt a fighting chance in a year where Republicans should have no chance at all.

Let's get behind our guy, people.  I'll admit, I've drunk the Kool-Aid; I know you have too.  You got to trust he's right about the spaceship.

2 points.  That's what McCain leads by in the Gallup Daily tracking poll.  That's on the first day of the weekend too, when McCain supporters are more likely to be home than Obama supporters.  That's assuming that Gallup is using the right mix of cell phones and land lines and that those 2 million new registered democrats have made their way on to their calling lists.  I have my doubts, but let's go ahead and call the Gallup accurate and McCain is up 2 points.  Let's look at the electoral college maps.  If Obama holds in Pennsylvania and Michigan, then he has to win Ohio, Florida, or Colorado and New Mexico.  The RCP averages have him down slightly in Ohio and Florida and up slightly in Colorado and New Mexico.  That means, if those polls are accurate, Obama would win the election.  It hasn't been a great week for Obama and it appears he would still win the election if it were held today.  Let's talk about the press.  They are finally getting pissed off.  Why shouldn't they be?  The McCain campaign has decided that Sarah Palin is to be treated differently than every other candidate in the modern era of politics.  She can't be interviewed except by friendly figures, she can't be called out when she lies, and she is not required to demonstrate even a passing knowledge of foreign policy issues.  We are seeing something I would call a Palin bubble.  Bubbles burst.  This one will too, but we don't get to decide when.  Adoration is followed by scrutiny and the thinner the story the faster it all peters out.  Remember when the press became critical of Obama?  It took him three of four months to right the ship, and Sarah Palin doesn't have three or four months.  As soon as the debates start this election will be Obama v. McCain again.  One final thought: call and canvass.  Hook up with the official Obama campaign.  Do it tomorrow.  Follow through.  This election will be won or lost by which campaign turns out more bodies and achieves more face to face interaction.  Don't give up.  This was never going to be easy.

My friends and I am aghast at the "non-violent" resistance strategy of the Obama campaign. I completely agree with Markos for calling it the "magic "new politics" bullshit"

Obama needs to stop preaching to the choir.

Obama has been campaigning and in the news for over two years, 6 months with daily primary coverage. EVERYONE who can be converted by his message has already been converted. That's why all this - "Obama should run ads on the issues,  this one is very effective" contains a fallacy.

The people who find previous ads/approaches effective are already converted. The undecideds or weak supporters aren't convinced by it and they have been exposed to it daily for the first 6 months of this year. 

I was going to send a contribution to his campaign but decided instead to send it to the Defenders of Wildlife to run the wolf ad. 

What I like about the wolf ad is that it creates a visceral response in animal lovers - who are spread across all geo-demographic groups. This will get a response from people who were not swayed earlier.

I am sending my $300 to finance running the ad and I got sis to kick in another $300. This will cover three viewings. In addition, I am posting it on women's forums and animal forums.

Obama may be Obama, but I am not.

I sure wish I was a movie director.  I’d be making one heck of an ad reminding folks of the Bush years; to heck with McCain and Palin.  Americans need to be reminded of what we’ve gone through for the past 8 years.  Yes, I said ‘reminded’.
 
We all know that Americans, or should I say human beings, have a short memory.  Isn’t that what President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have banked on for the past several years.  They’ve ‘changed’ the story line so many times it’s hard to keep up.

I would begin by editing the “Special Comment” given by Keith Olbermann on Countdown (MSNBC), picking off parts showing how the Bush administration used carefully timed ‘terror alerts’ to distract the media from ‘other news’ of the day.  News that would make the administration ‘look’ bad.  The alerts are all perfectly timed to ‘change’ what the media is reporting.

I would bring back the story of the leaked CIA agent’s name and how Bush promised to fire the person that leaked the name – then ends up pardoning Scooter Libby one of the men to have leaked the name.

I would point out the number of Executive directives overriding bills that Congress passed and Bush signed.  I would point out the “United States does not torture” comments by Bush and the Attorney General, then I’d show the testimony showing that, yes indeed, we ‘did’ torture prisoners.

I would show the push for war in Iraq by Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice and even John McCain – all saying we must avoid the mushroom cloud, WMD comments, and piece of cake, we’d be greeted as liberators, and the insurgency are in their last throes, etc…

I would show how Bush argued a federal Department of Homeland Security wasn't needed, and then changed his mind and devised a plan to create one.

I would show how he resisted a commission to investigate Iraq intelligence failures, but then changed his mind and relented.  He also initially opposed the creation of the independent commission to examine if the 2001 attacks could have been prevented, before changing his mind and getting behind the idea under pressure from victims' families

He said they were only spying on international communications – we find out later he lied.

I would show clips of Bush and McCain during Katrina.

These are just a few examples that someone with a great deal more smarts then I, could put together in a coherent video.

At the end of the video I would show clips of John McCain saying on live television that he supported Bush 100% and that he voted for 90% of what Bush wanted.

John McCain/Sarah Palin – More Bush years to come -- More Change?

Been busy watching Ike.  This JibJab song has probably been posted here already and I missed it.  Sorry for the double post.  Enjoy.

Here's the 30-second spot.


Clip of John McCain lying about Sarah Palin.
Giant FALSE flashes on screen
Clip of John McCain lying about Barack Obama.
Giant FALSE flashes on screen
Clip of John McCain lying about John McCain.
Giant FALSE flashes on screen

I'm Barack Obama, I will be honest with the American people, and I approved this message.

Please post your favorite lies about each of the three principles.

It's beginning!  Hundreds gather in Anchorage to protest Palin's VP candidacy!

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/525008.html

Word is there will soon be like protests all over Alaska!

I just read the New York Times article Once, Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes and what really struck me was the use of a personal email account to conduct State business.

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena."

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business."

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

What the fuck? Not to mention her husband sitting in to cut the State budget.

After I vote for Obama in November I'm going to be the first to sign a petition for her removal from office.

I heard her say that she opened up State government by publishing spending online.

I've learned more about her these past couple of weeks than I ever did living in Wasilla since 2000.

This lady is fucking scary.

But, to be fair - my mother warned me when Sarah was running for Governor. I should listen to her more often.

Hi there.

Let's quickly print and distribute straight talk bumper stickers that simply say,

"McCain Lies"

...and immediately distribute them to the battleground states.

I envision using McCain's Optima text or a bold sans serif in white on a red background. No graphics, except maybe a star.

Of course I could print these and collect the money myself, but something tells me that might not be exactly legal...  Is a 527 necessary? Is it possible to do something like this asap?

Does anyone have any thoughts or insight on this? Any interest?

I think we the people need to get out there and do our best to make sure 2004 is not repeated.

We are the warriors.

In his post Not Ready Josh Marshall calls McCain's foreign policy towards Russia "unhinged" and points out that the Obama-Biden policy of admitting Georgia to NATO is a very bad idea.

In view of the pogroms, the Red Terror, Lenin and Stalin's forced famines including that on the Ukraine; Stalin's various purges; Stalin's "collectivization" cleansings; the Cold War proxy insurgencies, wars, coups and covert killings, I cannot share your confidence in the regime dictated by Prime Minister Putin to be an equal rights enforcer among ethnicities under former USSR domination. I can't see it as anything other than what Putin intended all along: a leaner, meaner USSR.

Read more »

I just wonder after all I've read on Sarah, specially the piece of Saturday, Sept. 13 in the New York Times -- is is possible that perhaps since she already had expressed the wish of becoming president of the U.S. and she is linked with the Ted Stevens' case, which, by the way -- has been absent from the media -- that she somehow 'lobbied' with her retaliations dirty tricks to be the VP nominee? She is definitely linked with the oil mafia cartel...., something really fishy is going on. I don't think McCaine has anything to do with selecting her as VP. It was selected for him, and he is being a puppet. This is obvious to me.  

All US military academies include the Honor Concept as an essential part of the training.  The US Naval Academy Honor Concept can be found at http://www.usna.edu/OfficerDevelopment/honor/honorconcept.html  The second line of the Honor Concept says, "They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie."

To leave the Naval Academy because one violated the Honor Concept is considered the most humiliating reason for departure.  For this reason, I believe the Obama campaign has an especially effective lever in describing the behaviors of the McCain campaign and McCain himself as dishonorable for lying.  If he were told that to his face, he probably would go ballistic.

Really neat little video

check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KfqU18euHI

Check out the New Yorker article.  It's seriously good.  It contains this description of Palin's speaking style that I think is spot on:

Palin, who studied journalism in college and worked for a time as a sportscaster, has an informal manner of speech, simultaneously chatty and urgent, and she reinforces her words with winks and nods and wrinklings of her nose that seem meant to telegraph intimacy and ease. Speaking recently at her former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, she said, “It was so cool growing up in this church and getting saved here, getting baptized by Pastor Riley in Little Beaver Lake Camp, freezing-cold summer days that we had at camp—my whole family getting baptized when we were little.” She sounded the same when we met, high-spirited, irrepressible, and not in the least self-conscious. On the contrary, she is supremely self-confident, in the way of someone who believes that there is nothing she can’t talk her way into, or out of, or around or through. There was never a hesitation before speaking, or between phrases, no time for thought or reflection. The words kept coming—engaging, lulling, distracting—a commanding flow, but without weight. Yet, for all the cozy colloquialism, she cannot be called relaxed. She’s on—full on.

The McCain people has her sequestered for two reasons: They want to prep her for answering real questions, true.  But they must also be afraid that she'll shoot her mouth off.  She can't help it.  I'm sure some time in the last week or so, one of the Tuckers (can't keep them straight) told her to shut the hell up.  I think she knows this about herself too, because in the Gibson interviews, she kept repeating her stock phrases.  It was almost like she was reminding herself to stick to the script.
I have heard that people's votes are really about whether they really want to listen to this person talk for the next four years.  The Republicans are going to have to keep her giving speeches at rallies, because if the American people can just listen to her talk informally long enough, McCain is screwed.

Well, it's clear from Palin's address at the Republican National Convention that she can give a speech--but her interview on ABC makes it equally obvious that she has no idea what she's talking about. Palin isn't familiar with anything relevant to international relations and foreign policy (though she did make it clear that she's a firm imperialist). She's not aware of the existence--not to mention content—of the Bush Doctrine but rather cites "our right to invade" other countries (and not just in self defense). But, of course, that's not too surprising for a naive, provincial, small-town girl. After all, she's only been outside the U.S. three times in her life and has never even met a foreign head of state. But don't worry--Sarah is certain that being "neighbors" with Russia makes her an expert on foreign policy. Is this someone we can trust to make decisions that will govern us all? Even Palin admits she didn't think before accepting the invitation to run for vice president. Maybe it's just an ideological difference, but I believe people should think before volunteering to take on a responsibility like "leader of the free world." Watch Palin's interview on ABC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA

I'm not panicking.  I keep reading the concern trolls and the wingnut blogs, because if there's a reason to panic I don't want to be oblivious to it.  But I'm not panicking, at least not yet.  Here's why.

For one thing, I can see that a lot of the concern trolling about polls is based on cherry-picking the worst polls and ignoring the best, AND ignoring the to-be-expected convention bounce, AND ignoring margins of error in electoral college projections, etc.  I think some of the concern trolls understand this and just like to throw people into a tizzy by tossing concern bombs into the cafe.  

I see Palin as a net weakness for McCain.  AT BEST McCain's selection of Palin forced McCain to go into full-time lying mode.  And not subtle lies, but lies so blatant that McCain has lost a lot of the free passes he used to get from the media.  He's got no choice.  Palin's story without the facade of lies would send all but the hardest of hard-core evangelical wingnuts running. 

And that's the best case.  There's still a very good chance of any number of things blowing up in a way that would be fatal to McCain's campaign.  Troopergate <i>might</i> get squashed.  But it might not.  The boldest of the concern trolls and the boldest of the wingnuts try to explain away Palin's interview answers as being crafty or even brilliant, but that's wishful thinking.   She's out of her depth and bluffing and lying non-stop.

She might pull it off, learning enough to wing her way through the debates and interviews, and stonewalling investigations until after the election at least, and brazenly lying about everything else, but that just puts her in the position of having to sell those lies for six more weeks.  That's not a strong position.

And more importantly, it puts McCain in the position of having to sell those lies alongside her, alienating the pundits who used to have some inexplicable respect for his alleged integrity. 

I'm not saying that it's impossible for Obama to lose.  Obviously there are any number of things that could go wrong.

But I am saying, ignore the concern trolls. 

Wait and see how the polls start to settle out over the next few weeks, as more data and more up-to-date data becomes available on the electoral map analyses.  And be sure to read up on "margin of error" if you don't understand it so the concern trolls who don't understand it or pretend not to understand it can't use statistically bogus analysis to sell their concerns. 

Wait and see if the "McCain is lying" meme catches fire, since the results so far look promising.  He's losing a lot of the free pass and presumption of integrity that he's gotten for too long.

Wait and see how the media treat interviews with Palin, when they're given the chance.  Charlie Gibson of all people gave a semi-tough interview for Palin.  The disdain McCain is showing for the media now may provoke more of thesame.

Wait and see what troopergate brings out, or other results from the vetting that's finally happening for Palin. 

None of these things have been happening long enough yet for extrapolations to be meaningful.  Wait a bit.  There will be enough time to panic later, if necessary. 

Hello,

I am a very disturbed at the recent report broadcasted by CNN...

?Russians react to Palin 3:17 CNN's Matthew Chance reports on how Russians are reacting to VP candidate Sarah Palin's comments on Russia}

 Could someone please post on and refute the comments made on CNN not so long ago today re Russia's withdrawal from Georgia based upon the muddled confusing comments that Sarah Plain made yesterday re Russia, Georgia and NATO.

This is insanity.  Please tell me people in America do not believe this shit !

Like do CNN seriously believe that RUSSIA who had agreed to "partially"  pull out of Georgia as a result of serious European pressure and threats of sanctions in the past few weeks is as a result of Palin's weak ass interview with Charlie Wilson today!
God Save my this is insanity!  Please can you post something refuting this before I loose all hope!

Many Thanks,

Karen O'Connell

A very, very concerned Irish citizen.
 

Watching the Dem surrogates over the past few weeks I have become rankled by their lack of preparation in taking on the Machine.  Had they been better prepared, the message would resonate much more powerfully.  I actually think they have done a better job recently, its a rigged format and our surrogates are rarely given a fair shake in most media formats today, putting us on defense, and engendering hurried speech before we are cut off. Still, refining the discussion will help the message reach many more voters.

So, I am adopting the following practices in my discussions and debates with right wingers, and welcome any surrogates to add these/ invest more in the following:

1.  Plan for the Bob and Weave.  Expect your counterpart to change the argument once they feel pinned down.  Begala nailed the GOP on the Palin Bridge Lie, and Castellanos then tried to justify that earmarks were OK.  Greg Sargeant wrote on this yesterday, that isnt the debate.  The importance is that we are being sold an inexperienced DC outsider as a great solution, largely due to her mavericky ways, the most central proof of which is a lie.

So prepare for some self effacing repositioning and call it out as such, then drive your initial point home.   "Her story on The Bridge has nothing to do with whether earmarks are inherently always good or bad, and you know it.  Its sad you must change the subject in order to continue the lie to America.  But we won't let you disrespect our people.  

This has everything to do with McCain logic-defying claim to Change.  Earmarks are his most cited reform.  This Bridge lie seems a total washout to justify her maverickness, but a home run in demonstrating, again, that McCain's campaign will say anything- even dishonor the American people with bold face lies- to get elected.   Shame on John McCain, and shame on you." 

2.  Draw Them Out.  Make them tell you what they are saying and dispense devil's advocate attacks.  Force them to state it as opinion they cant substantiate it is an accepted fact. 

For example, Obama wants sex ed outcomes that are not included in the four corners of the bill enacted?  What makes you think that?  Who are these "some people" who say there may be other motives and what exactly have they claimed?  If that bill isnt about protecting kids from pedophiles, what is your more reasonable explanation, and why is it important enough to spend national TV type money to discuss? 

And once they are drawn out-Attack (man, Begala was so right)!.  How is this better service for our country (country first right?) talking about sex ed-  instead of the economic plan to revive our economy?  Clarify position, legsweep.  Shame them.  Use simple strong words to do damage, not deference.   

3.  Framing.  Show the audience the impact it will have on their lives.  Show them the injustice of the issues they support and its contrast to the generally accepted American way of life.  We don’t lie, we don’t steal, we don’t bullshit.  We work hard, give freedom to our neighbor to pursue happyness, and make our way. 

As a specific example, I have a problem with “can’t win on the issues.  Its not "issues" versus "character."  Too bland, too hazy.  But issues become Wars,a nd We dont do Bad Wars, plus , they become Biggest Financial Bailouts in History, and We arent about free rides, or Financial Failure.  The issues mean one more car for the CEO's garage while his worker's child's, perhaps yoru niece or nephew, another sickness goes untreated. 

So what is America to you?  What should goverment do to pretect it.  Stand up to prevent Oil Wars for your grandsons to fight, or American Idol?  Issues= the fight for the Future.  Character= distracting us from the American fight, to fight one another instead.  Frame those issues with the moral compass of America.  Both the right and the left have parts of the American story to use, but the left sometimes forgets to remind us of its part in our American DNA

4.  Attach Specific Benefit or Pain to a Characteristic.  Thats why the 3am call and finger on the button comments are always so game changing, right?.  It internalizes the issue, causes a personal reaction, a feeling is owned, and that message stands out in a hectic day.

The Pain of Lying Example.  OK, so they misspoke, the stretched the truth, all politicians do that right?  Hey, lies got us into trillions of dollars of wasted money in the Iraq war, money which could have been used here to help our economy.  Lies start wars.  Lies kill our brave soldiers.  Lies take money out of the working man's pocket and into the billionaire's, when the opposite was promised.  Government lies mortgage American honor.  Lies steal from America’s future prosperity. 

Finally a question:  In the Ad "still," they have McCain with glasses, it reminds me of his Keating Five days.  Perhaps purposeful?  Why no talk of the Keating Five scandal to date?  Is it time for surrogates to attack?

After reading about McCain and Palin's absence from the Values Voter Summit this weekend, I was reminded that these folks didn't exactly show McCain a whole lot of love at their event last year.

Want to tie your donations or fundraising directly to McCain & Palin's pathological lies? Here are tools to help you do it:

http://dollarforeverylie.blogspot.com/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/DollarforEveryLie

After reading about McCain and Palin's absence from the Values Voter Summit this weekend, I was reminded that these folks didn't exactly show McCain a whole lot of love at their event last year.

Let me clarify. I'm NOT looking to argue with any of you. I need an argument for my sister. I fear my sister is but one of many that have a good reason to vote McCain/Palin. She votes Pro-Life. You can say what you want about abortion rights, if someone decides that a pro-life agenda is what's most important to them, they should vote republican. I have no delusions about changing my sisters mind about abortion. However, I'd like to refine an argument that convinces her that you shouldn't choose a president based on this one issue. I've seen snippets about this hear and there but if anyone has a great link to a compelling argument that covers this point, I'd be forever gratefull.

PS: I think there could be a great SNL skit that went back in time to the elections of the late 1700's. There could be a debate between Washington, Jefferson, Adams, .... that covered the basic big issues of the time. However one of the questioners is demanding to know their position on abortion before the 'quickening' and all the founding fathers can do is look exasperated that someone is asking this question.

OK, so I shouldn't quit my day job and write for SNL ;)

First post (long time listener. hah.) – if I break any boundaries of etiquette within the cafe please let me know.

I've found any significant focus on Todd Palin generally lacking, which would be fine if he was, say Laura Bush or Mrs. Cheney. He isn't.

I've tried to formulate some insight but the tale below really requires none. Please read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14todd.html

It has gotten too much. With the daily stream of shocking, disturbing revelations, I find myself increasingly sickened. Is this really the level of the quality of this country, the true character of its leaders? Dishonest, dishonorable, disgusting??? And true of McCain and Palin - absolutely low information politicians, for low information voters? Yes, McCain, too. I've been shocked by his ignorance, his obstinacy that he knows things (in his own obsolete sixties, GWB cowboy way). I find myself knowing more than him about events in the world, including politics, world affairs, world culture (with the advantage, I'll admit, of not having grown up in the USA). This is scary, that even I know more... And I can't even begin to voice my horror at Palin's utter idiocy, her extreme ignorance, her immature, bullying ways. You can see Russia from Alaska, and that is the basis of her foreign policy experience???? That she could utter something so shatteringly STUPID is frightening. Did we not learn from Bush? For all those who have said she's a smart, capable woman, you declare yourselves incompetent to judge, or willing to say anything to see your side win. "Elitist" is just another euphemism for "you know more than me, and I hate you for it". McCain and Palin object to a "fat resume"??? When we despise competence, intelligence, experience and skill, we enter the Dark Ages again, ruled by brutish thugs who spit, lie, bite and scratch...

Obama camp: 'Disgusting lies,' 'not worthy'

Sensing, perhaps, a turn in the media against McCain's stunts, Obama spokesman Bill Burton puts out a scorching statement:

“We will take no lectures from John McCain who is cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern Presidential campaign history. His discredited ads with disgusting lies are running all over the country today. He runs a campaign not worthy of the office he is seeking,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton

.http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_camp_Disgusting_lies_not_worthy.html#comments

Good statement Obama campaign. Now, do not be cute or shady in your advertisements or in statements on the stump. Tell the truth, be straight, don't stretch the facts, ETC. We have more than enough red meat on McCain and Palin to use. Also, go back to big rallies, dress-up to look Presidential again, and don't be afraid to be articulate.

Dems have hit McCain on everything Dems find offensive about the man, but to be honest Obama already has the votes of people who will be offended by his pro-war, conservative agendas.
McCain has many "nose holder" conservatives in his camp who are voting for him because they see him as the "lesser evil".  Democrats don't need to win these guys over to win the election, just demoralize them enough to stay home.
And there is much to demoralize them.  MUCH.
For instance, amongst conservatives, McCain is known as "the Traitor", "Captain Amnesty", and many less pleasant nicknames.
"Captain Amnesty" is from McCain's long support of amnesty for illegal immigrants.  Conservatives HATE this policy, while Democrats are by and large indifferent to it.  Pushing ads pointing this out will not lose Democrats many votes, but will cause Republicans to literally begin fistfights.
The problem of course is that Democrats have integrity, which in politics is usually a liability.  Just as the conservatives have to hold their noses to vote for McCain, progressives will have to hold their noses to defeat him.

Revealing the true nature of John McCain and Sarah Palin's supporters didn't take too long. How can anyone support McCain and deny they too are racist? Where are the people denouncing this?

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney spoke at a meeting of these klansmen mocking the name of god by congregating in his name.

Let's not forget the problems Mitt Romney already has with the Mormon church and black. As if he needs more problems. Oh well, I guess we were right the first time when we said he associated with an anti black church. He hasn't said a thing about this yet.

And Snopes still says a certain quote is 'undetermined.' Sarah Palin has not denied that she uttered the 'Sambo' quote.

This is the Obama Pancake Mix photo you will be hearing more about.

This AP article has a photo of a this blatantly racist and degrading stereotype sold at the Racist Values Voters Forum as a party favor/souvenir. Think Progress adds a little more here.

Maybe, maybe not.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/12/get_a_grip_palins_candidacy_ha/

This post got my interest today.  Actually, it wasn't the post as much as it was some of the commenters, especially this one by Bademus...

There is another issue here that I think is huge and hasn't received any attention. I have seen in comments in locations all over the web and heard from others an argument from women that goes something like this:

"I don't agree with Sarah Palin on abortion but I like her (enter something here relating to image/personality, not issues). I'm not worried about the abortion issue because they won't be able to overturn it. Congress would never allow it, women would march, there's too much opposition to making it illegal."

I keep hearing this - I think this view is prevalent in the women who are drawn to Palin. These women need somehow to be reached so they understand that roe vs. wade will indeed be overturned with McCain.

I am a recent convert, was a Hillary supporter (but not necessarily a PUMA).  After the election, I was just disgusted, and many women like myself just didn't want to go vote after all of that.  The only reason I decided to get off the couch was because of Palin. 

It isn't that Obama has earned my vote - he hasn't (FISA, for one) - but that I have to vote against McCain.  I don't like the Religious Right and they do NOT need a foot in the door.  More women are starting to trickle in, too.  I SEE the interest from them; I work on my friends, they will listen to me.   But the others want to hear from the Obama campaign, and neither they nor Obama is DOING anything to get the damn votes! 

Women tend to personalize things, and some, when they have a breakup, can't just get up and go right on.  You would think men would know this by now, but maybe they don't.   I don't think it's the best technique, to woo injured parties by saying "Get over it"?   Bademus, while on the right track, is getting blindsided by idealism.

C4Logic: I never believed the PUMA's were advocates of a progressive Democrat agenda. They have some cult of personality obsession with Hillary, as a political strategy for Republicans.

While I don't think PUMA is a "cult" per se, I think it's definitely one of those Delphi-technique type of approaches that the Republicans are using to get the Democratic female base - you know, the part that actually shows up to vote - over to the dark side.  I can smell Delphi a mile away, school administrators use it on parents all the time...

Murphy (Republican, head of PUMA) shows up with sympathy for the Hillary supporters,  feeds them BS (i.e. 'Roe V. Wade doesn't count!'), gets tons of media attention somehow, and eggs them on.   Some of these women now are only out for revenge.  They don't care about anything except how they or Hillary has been treated.  Why did the Dems even allow That foot in the door?

I am from PA, and all these Republicans who I knew were going to sit this one out are now VERY turned on by The Moosehunter.  These aren't rural Republicans, either - these are suburbanites, women who want to be turned on, or PUMAs. 

In picking Palin, McCain gave himself a testosterone injection; he was dearly in need of one, and it worked.  Biden helped Obama in that vein, but he's not the solution.    Those women that hightailed it over the PUMA, they aren't putting up with limp.   That's their message to you, really.  And the ones who want to jump ship are thinking, Get some spine, get some Viagra, DO something!!  Woo me!!

You can't count on the student vote.  My husband teaches college in one of the bigger suburban u's here.  There were 1000 Dem students registered in the primary to vote on campus, but only 437 came out to vote!!!  Hardball was even there, in all its' Obama glory, on top of it.  GOTV better Get Off The Couch and haul these kids' hungover butts to the polls.

The Obama campaign REEKS of bad technique.  He definitely has a reason to worry about PA. - and probably Ohio, VA, and a few others.  Maybe he needs to put Oprah in charge - he's got to pull out ALL the stops, or McCain is going to win Big.

The Democrats overestimating the stupidity of the average Sheeple, or underestimating  the scumbag capacity of the Republicans, should not be a problem yet again.   But it IS - and it's a BIG problem.   They MUST NOT forget why Gore and Kerry "lost."   I would hope to hell TPTB are not that stupid, or that limp.  Then again....

Thought I'd save you the trouble of clicking on the title.

A little article from May 22, 2008.  Goes to show a bit of Palin's environmental policy. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2145097820080522

The GOP  strategy of introducing Palin is akin to those failing businesses on every main street that put out a perpetual signS saying, "QUITTING BUSINESS" - "EVERYTHING 50% OFF,"  "LIQUIDATION!"  

Would that it were true.
But of course there really is no bargain inside -  the point is to get you in the store.  Ms Palin is like the person hired to stand out front and wave to get you to notice the "SALE."  She'll do anything to get your attention.  She'll even lie, and spring a bounce,  if that's what it takes to get you in where her bosses  pounce.

It makes no sense to attack the mascot in a moose suit when it is the quality and value of the products that matter.  Attacking Palin only adds to her ability to get more attention.  People are driving by just to see the moose.  It make much more sense to attack whats behind the doors and warn of the predatory tactics and practices of owners.
Attacking Palin and focusing attention on her is equivalent to breathing life into a failing enterprise.  Don't we all want the going out of buisiness sign to come true  and be rid them once and for all?   I'm  tired of looking at it.

Embrace the moose she's fun and silly.
McCain's the animal we need to  -"Kilkenny" 

McCain's not straight don't take his bait.

Some people love her enough to overlook any possible faults. Some people hate her enough to make up lies. All of them are right. Because none of us are talking about the actual Governor of Alaska. All of us--with the exception of, oh, Alaskans--are talking about the imaginary figure we've created, as a kind of place holder, until we really get to know her.

If and when we can ever truly reconcile our vision of the governor with her reality, I mean.

There was a time that first impressions didn't hold a lot of worth. But when McCain introduced a virtually unknown governor in her 18th month in office as his running mate, he forced Americans into a whiplash-worthy first impression.

It's one we may not recover from in time. Because it takes more than two weeks to get to know a real person. It takes more than two months.

But that's all he gave us. He introduced her with only sixty days to go in one of the most important presidential races in history.

Normally I dislike using sports metaphors in politics. They encourage us to cheer for "our" team and boo the "other" team, instead of reminding us that we are all supposed to be on the same team, Team America, no matter which party is in the White House or Congress. But this time, I will use one.

The McCain campaign, by introducing a relative newcomer with only two months to go in the election, is running down the clock.

People who ask in-depth questions of his VP choice are called "condescending." People who defend themselves by calling her lies lies are called "discourteous." The press is told that she will not give interviews until they are prepared to treat her with "respect and deference"--a demand, by the way, unprecedented in American politics. In the meantime, the airwaves are full of trivia (she likes mooseburgers!) and lies (she wanted to ban books!) and attempts at truths (she really was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, and she sold the jet at a loss). And every day of that is a day we didn't discuss the economy, the wars, the housing crisis, or the Constitution.

In the meantime, there really does exist a governor of both the largest state of the union (in landmass) and the smallest state in the union (in population, depending on the season). She's fairly popular there. But we're too busy being distracted by the Anna Nicole Smith / Michael Jackson / Britney Spears feeding frenzy (by the way, you don't know them either) to focus on reality.

Instead of me presuming to tell you the reality, let me ask you about it:

Think about someone, or everyone, you've met and instantly fell in love with. Were they the same prson two months, much less two years later?

Would you recommend marrying someone you'd never heard of two months before? Why or Why not?

Finally--and this is very important. What's the name of that guy running to be President of the United States on the Republican ticket? No, not Barack Obama. We've had almost two years to get to know him, sure, but I'm talking about the Republican ticket. The guy we've known even longer. Yes, that's it. John McCain!

The one hiding behind his imaginary friend.

"Obama Waffles"
http://www.myembarq.com/news/read.php?id=16377163&ps=1017&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

Seriously. Just go do it. Yes, it'll probably involve calling actual people and talking to them on the phone. I know it's scary, that's why you're on the internet instead. But it's far more valuable, and it will make you feel better and it will help the campaign.

Today was my first time ever volunteering for a political campaign. I did phone banking. It was completely different from what I expected. I thought I had to be a mini-Obama, convincing people to vote for him. Here's how it actually works: you get a list of people to call. You get a script to follow. You call, ask if the person is home, ask who they're supporting in the coming election. If Obama, ask if they're willing to volunteer. If McCain, they'll probably hang up on you. If undecided, you ask if there are any particular issues they're interested in (so they can be targeted with specific materials). Then, you tell them a little about why you support Obama (there are talking points if you feel like sticking to the script).

I hate talking on the phone. Like, dread it. I'd much rather see people in person, eye to eye. But this is what it takes to get somebody elected. Right now, they're trying to contact every registered voter in Nevada. Imagine that. The Obama campaign is trying to get in touch with every person registered to vote in NV. That's how they're planning on winning this election. It's unbelievable. I'm in Berkeley, and they said that yesterday they ran out of numbers to call because they had so many volunteers.

Go donate some time. It's good for the campaign, and it'll make you feel better. It's not as hard as you might think.

The Duke Cunningham story broke because someone got curious about his house. And, newspaper reports mentioned Elizabeth Todd of Willis Allen Realty as the realtor who handled the transaction. Just your local everyday realtor selling a house. But, not quite.

The actual Wilkes/Wade purchase of the house(s) eventually came out, but basically, Elizabeth got a pass. That is, until I read that she had also arranged a golf-outing fundraiser for Duke's American Prosperity PAC.

A little PAC raking and I come up with husband Whitney contributing to the Friends Of Duke Cunningham PAC & the Peace Through Strength PAC. So, the average everyday realtor story becomes about as believable as MZM's Scotty Burmett's statement that MZM was just, ".....looking to expand our presence in San Diego."

Accordingly, I guess that Hugh Bancroft was merely trying to expand the Wall Street Journal's presence in San Diego when he bought Cunningham's house from Mitch Wade. The $4.1 million from the Corporation For Public Broadcasting Chair, William Tomlinson, had nothing to do with it.

Tomlinson was also busy trying to increase his presence in the thoroughbred horse racing business, just like the Delmar Fair Board's Brent Wilkes and the Foxfield Races' Mitch Wade. And, he worked so hard at it that he was finally asked to resign at the Corporation For Public Broadcasting and was replaced by Cheryl Halpern.

The only horse connection, that I found, that may link to Cheryl, is that Edward Halpern is the Executive Director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers. California horseman Wilkes, however, takes us to the CIA Derby.

Wilkes' buddy, Dusty Foggo, becomes #3 at the CIA under Porter Goss. Goss Chief of Staff, Patrick Murray, also accompanies Goss and the resignations begin. The top guys at CIA apparently weren't horse fans like Francis X & Francis W Murphy of the International Thoroughbred Breeders.

This resignation problem didn't exist for Goss & Murray at the House Rules Committee, as evidenced by the long running presence of Staff Director Hugh Halpern.

US Attorney Philip Halpern is sort of like your local everyday realtor. He has to sell to earn. But, we end up with the same questions. What is he selling? And, who's buying it?

Funny how a house can make you curious.

I read a few weeks ago a post or email written by an Obama supporter, the gist of which was that it seemed like every time Obama did something that the writer thought would help him (having his foreign policy recommendations adopted by the Bush administration, speaking before a huge crowd in one of our stauchest allies - Germany, etc.) his pole numbers dropped. Basically, to the writer it seemed like this was a bizarro election.

I think that is what is bothering a lot of dems right now. By all accounts, we had a very successful, energy filled, convention. Obama seems to have been proven right in all his foreign policy proposals as the Bush administration is belatedly adopting them. His acceptance speech energized a stadium full of people. He has better domestic policies.

In contrast, McCain's convention, other than Sarah Palin night, was a pretty tired affair. His acceptance speach was pretty lackluster, and the crowd seemed to cheer more out of duty than genuine excitement. Even Palin night, though filled with energy, featured primarily negative energy. I remember watching and thinking that there was no way this binge of fear, resentment, and meanness would play well. Not to mention that McCain's policies stink, although it's hard to tell exactly what he would do in a lot of cases because he either a) doesn't have a policy proposal for many domestic issues, and b) he flip-flops on many of his policy proposals in speeches, depending on the audience he is addressing, so you can't tell what he would do.

I thought the Palin pick was a fatal mistake, and expected his poll numbers to drop. On top of that, both he and Palin have been called out repeatedly since the convention for lies and distortions. They have no positive message other than a commitment to some generic effort toward "reform" and an opposition to earmarks, although the fact that he picked Palin undercuts that message.

By pretty much every measure, it seems to me (and I expect a lot of you) that Obama should be well up in the polls. He's run the better, more substantive, more positive, and more competent campaign by far. McCain and his spokespeople have made repeated mistakes and gaffes, run a disorganized campaign, and had a primarily negative and dishonest. Yet he is the one up in the polls. What's panicking us is that this election makes no sense. Down is up. Black is white. We can't figure out what Obama has done wrong, hasn't done right, or whatever. The general electorate seems to respond in the exact opposite way that we think they will respond. It really makes no sense, and is very unsettling. I don't know what do do about it but keep volunteering and donating. And rely on Obama's ground game and competence to put us over the top in the end.

Earlier today, I read Kos on DailyKos and Ben Smith on Politico. Both offered interesting second-hand quotes, which happened to converge on crucial one point. Kos, citing a pre-conventions Bob Novak column (all bold-facing by me):

I asked one of the Republican Party's smartest, most candid heavy hitters last week whether John McCain really has a chance to defeat Barack Obama in this season of Republican discontent. "No, if the campaign is about McCain," he replied. "Yes, if it's about Obama."

Ben Smith on Politico:

"We’re running a campaign to win," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said. "And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.
“Clearly we intend to stay on offense,” Rogers said. “That’s what we need to do because the campaign is fundamentally about him."

Sounds like they've fallen right into the trap, doesn't it?

I'm not really sure why everyone panicked after Sarah Palin was selected as VP and McCain got a bounce.  Not only are McCain and Obama now within the margin of polling error of each other again, but while Obama hit the magic 50% figure on September 1st, McCain failed to do so with his big bounce.
Also, Obama and McCain's polling numbers are BOUNCES.  Prior to the Democratic National Convention, Obama polled between 44% and 45%.  Now he is at 45% again.  Before either convention McCain polled at between 44% and 45% AS WELL, and is now at 47%.  If the trend over the last 2 or 3 days continues, tomorrow they will be tied and by Monday Obama will be ahead again.
So let's all take a deep breath and cease the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Obama's new site with McCain-Palin's ties to Lobbyists...check it out!

www.mclobbyist.com

The avatars are back!

That means I'm a jet flyin', limo ridin', kiss stealin', wheelin' dealin' sonfoagun, once again!

The Nature Boy was very sad to learn that the pick of Sarah Palin had so overloaded TPM's servers that you all were no longer able to see my bleach blonde au naturale look!  Whoooo!

Now we got a new server on the way.  And then we can correct our typos.  Whoooo! 

But don't thank Josh and the server.  This is because the Nature Boy took the Concorde (the only way to fly) to Wasilia and showed that Tina Faye look-a-like why they call him the 60 minute man.  Because whether ya like it or ya don't, learn ta love it.  Diamonds are forever, just like destor23!  Whoooo!

(Sorry... we need an avatar party).

 You have to learn to follow Scary Palin logic.

Scary Palin explained that there is nothing wrong with States demanding and taking Federal money for pork barrel projects. What is wrong is the Federal Government giving in to those demands.

Scary Palin logic 101

It is perfectly acceptable to walk in to a bank, stick a gun in the teller's face, and demand all the cash be handed over.

According to Scary Palin logic 101, what is wrong is when a bank teller who is being held up by an armed robber, turns over the cash to the armed thief.

Scary Palin Logic 101

Armed Bank Robbers, good!

Terrified Bank Tellers, bad!

The Obama campaign has put out this website Mclobbyist.com. Here comes the artillery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The top of page reads

The McCain Seven

John McCain has had at least 177
lobbyists running his campaign and raising money for him. The McCain
Seven—all lobbyists—control the campaign filling roles from senior
foreign policy advisor and finance co-chair all the way up to head of
command, campaign manager. The McCain Seven make sure special interests
come first.

The Obama campaign has put out this website Mclobbyist.com. Here comes the artillery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The top of page reads

The McCain Seven

John McCain has had at least 177
lobbyists running his campaign and raising money for him. The McCain
Seven—all lobbyists—control the campaign filling roles from senior
foreign policy advisor and finance co-chair all the way up to head of
command, campaign manager. The McCain Seven make sure special interests
come first.

The Obama campaign has put out this website Mclobbyist.com. Here comes the artillery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The top of page reads

The McCain Seven

John McCain has had at least 177 lobbyists running his campaign and raising money for him. The McCain Seven—all lobbyists—control the campaign filling roles from senior foreign policy advisor and finance co-chair all the way up to head of command, campaign manager. The McCain Seven make sure special interests come first.

Is this the start of what we've been waiting for?????????

As suburban independent woman recently began to succumb to the "She's just like me" complex, I developed a deeper appreciation of Rovian tactics. He knows how to pull the levers of identity politics.The victims comply on cue.

Obama's only hope seems to be to hammer McCain-Palin for lying and hope that the media join in enough to seal the deal. I like his tactic, because there's such compelling proof that they're lying. I only wish  he would make a bit more pointed statement to the independents who are swinging to McCain-Palin. I have a modest proposal here.

I'd say, "I know that many people identify with Gov. Palin. She seems like the kind of person many people would  like to know and feel they could be friends with. She seems like the kind of person who knows many of you well enough that she can represent you. She seems to be as trustworthy as one of your good friends. But she only seems that way."

"Sarah Palin is not like you in extremely important respect. You're not bald faced liars determined to deceive people into liking you. She is. So is John McCain. She got up on one of the biggest world stages, The Republican National Convention, and told a huge lie. She tried to make you think that she is one of you, that she is a person who wants to put at end to wasteful spending. She presented herself as a reformer who's on your side concerning government spending. She tried to back up that claim by lying, by deceiving you in the grossest manner. She said that she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the frivolous, absurd project to build a multi-million dollar bridge to an island with only ab out 50 inhabitants. The news media called her a liar, and it wasn't only the so-called liberal media. It was also the conservative Wall Street Journal. Now, a month later, she had to admit that she didn't tell lthe truth, because news journalist Charle Gibson confronted her with detailed facts about the bridge.

The politcal tactician who ran Bush's campaigns and is running this one is well-known for advising clients to lie, because he knows that, as Lincoln said, You can fool all of the people some of the time. We hunger for a politician we can trust, and it's very difficult to figure out whether a politician is trustworthy. So we often rely on our sense of the person, on whether they are like us enough to be on our side. That is a powerful idea that Bush, McCain, and Palin exploit. Don't let them do that to you. Don't let them fool you.

Lincoln also said, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time." No you can't, because most people eventually get burned enough by a powerful idea that they begin to question it. Americans have been burned to a crisp by George Bush, by his lies and manipulations of your sympathies, by his good old boy manner and his aw shucks personality.We're  lost huge amounts of money and lives on a war that he fooled us into. He even fooled Colin Powell. And he fooled us about cutting taxes on the rich down to nothing and about outsourcing jobs. He's been the flim flam artist, and now McCain and Palin are continuing his tactics. Don't let them fool you.

Take more time to look at their positions. They want to keep Bush's tax cuts on the rich. They want you to keep paying more than your share. They also want to keep outsourcing jobs and thereby making your lives more difficult. McCain thinks of the war in Iraq as a big success. He says we are victorious. General Patreaus disagrees. He was recently quoted as saying that he thinks there will never be victory in Iraq. Take more time to think about these big ticket items that directly affect your lives and the life of the nation. We absolutely cannot afford another four years of these policies and the lies that enabled Bush to get enough support to push them through.

I may not be the person you want to go to the mall or barbeque with, although most of the middle and lower class people I have one-on-one relationships disagree. They end up liking me and feeling that I'm on their side. And my stated polices that are supported by most democratic leaders are truly on your side. There's no disputing that. I'm giving you a tax break. I'm cutting back onoutsourcing. I'm ending the war and making America safer by going after Al-Queda in Pakistan and Afganistan. I'm on you side much more than you think than if you just think about my personalitly and my life story. Think about it.

To: Governor Palin A Primer for You on My Doctrine. Dear Sarah,     First and foremost. Never talk in complete sentences. Use bad grammar, it appeals to bubba and confuses journalists taking notes.   Read "Mine Kampf" and "Animal Farm" for leadership clues.  Let God speak through you, this is especially important to our right-wing base and we can never afford to alienate them!  They provide the votes and our moral backbone Sarah. Promise them, Dobson and company, anything.  I mean anything they request, because once in power, you can ignore and duck them successfully like me.     Call Dick and Karl first thing every morning. Dick gives you the latest energy strategy in making money for us big-oil people.  I call it maximizing energy profits for friends and family, clever huh?  I'm so happy, you know energy too.     Karl supplies the day's talking points. When he says lie... Lie; insult... Insult; he's the best. Don't try and seduce Karl, and for goodness sake, avoid the public urinals in the White House.  For domestic issues, call upon our good, mutual, Alaskan, buddy Ted Stevens. As you have learned, domestic politics are a gold mine. If Ted doesn't have a solution, he has Jack Abranoff's  'cell' number.     Get yourself a good dog or little piggy, if you prefer. This a tough business Sarah, I mean tough, and you will need trusting companionship.     Start the day by raising hell, pick a foreign leader, call him a terrorist and tell him to go to hell. Boy, so simple and effective. Believe me, this keeps the press off your back. You'll be surrounded by people who always want to discuss important issues, but don't do it, that's what we pay the servants of a president to do.  Dad taught me this one, be king.  Of course, you can't tell some leaders like our royal Saudi business partners to go to hell.   I'll leave my don't F*** with list for you under the bedside lamp.     During each day's morning-brief and during cabinet and staff meetings, have everyone recite the loyalty to the president oath.  This oath comes from the document we treasure. The personal diary of Hitler.  Boy, he knew how to keep 'em down on the farm and fighting for country, didn't he Sarah?  The diary was secreted out of Hitler's bunker at the end of the war.  Dad used to revel in telling me the story of how we beat the Russians to it. Nixon passed it to Regan who gave it to Dad and he gave it to me. Don't concern yourself with John, we're bypassing him.  He's a liar, can't be trusted. Besides, I got a phone call back in the 2000 race and you know, he has black babies.      Now Sarah the big news.  Contained, in code, in the loyalty oath are specific directions for running the country.  Don't worry about experience.  Just follow the president's yellow-brick road outlined within.  I've never given Dick the decipher, ha, ha.  I really don't like him, he's uppity.  Here are some hints of the code's directions to wet you power desire Sarah:  immediately fire anyone who doesn't say yes Mrs. President.  Order lunch before 10a.m. because the kitchen is slow. They are government employees.  Take a helicopter ride to somewhere at least twice a week.  Only accept invitations to foreign countries that serve good food.  Schedule you day around your favorite TV programs. In the afternoon, practice putting in the Oval Office.  For evening entertainment, invite the five-star generals over to play "Blitzkrieg."  Don't play poker with the Secret Service, you'll lose.  Go to bed chanting obfuscate, obfuscate............       During press conferences,  repeat, repeat, repeat,  the golden mantra: "cut taxes, small government, God and country." Oh Sarah, it's so easy being the decider. There is much more, we'll talk soon, but right now I'm off to the situation room for a meeting inspired by you, our first preemptive strike at Russia roundtable.      Congratulations in advance on your victory and don't tell Jeb that you will choose him as Vice president the day after McCain's ....oops that's a secret. Mom and Dad want Jeb to be surprised.     Oh, I almost forgot.  Never take a call from the United Nations.
Your drill drill drill friend, George    

There are some new search, seizure, and interrogation rules floating around the District of Columbia. Congress is getting distracted from the Constitution. These new rules, in effect, create a new class of detentions, and essentially legalize NSL-like abuses.

Some would like to believe that this is good for America and will make us safer. The abusive methods will fuel more antagonism between the government and the American public. The new standards lower the bar on what FBI agents can do. The real problem is the pervasive use of these powers at the local law enforcement level.

NYT shares the FBI's "new" standardless interrogation, search, and surveillance procedures. On suspicion alone, the FBI agents are allowed to conduct covert, domestic intelligence gathering; even when their suspicions are minimal, they can broadly conduct public searches.

This is antithetical to the Constitution and repugnant.
 
What the article fails to address are how local law enforcement have institutionalized these "new FBI" powers.  Without any legal basis or reasaonable justification, officers do detain people merely because they want to go on a fishing trip.

The problem is when law enforcement interprets a citizens exercise of constitutional rights to claim the citizen was not "fully cooperating" and the officer had suspicion, warranting an otherwise illegal detention, search, and seizure.

These illegal interrogations, detentions, and searches are abusive, intrusive and disruptive. They are not connected with bonafide national security interests. These abusive interviews are linked with individual officers goals to retaliate against individual citizens who question the illegal government activity, unlawful detentions, and abusive interviews.

This government is relying on its ignorance as a pretext to deny our rights, abuse its power, and intrude into our private lives.

This is not America. This has become a police state. This Congress, rather than challenging this abuse, is debating whether it should accept greater abuses as "necessary."

The public must openly discuss a new system of oversight which will effectively challenge this Congress and the abusive executive. Our Constitution is linked with a Republic. This government would treat the Supreme Law as discretionary.

The American public must view law enforcement and the American government -- under these new rules of abusive surveillance -- as the domestic enemy and a threat to this Constitution.

These interrogation, surveillance, search, and detention standards institutionalize unconstitutional conduct. This government does not respect written law and, by definition, illegitimate.

 

To: Governor Palin A Primer for You on My Doctrine. Dear Sarah,     First and foremost. Never talk in complete sentences. Use bad grammar, it appeals to bubba and confuses journalists taking notes.   Read "Mine Kampf" and "Animal Farm" for leadership clues.  Let God speak through you, this is especially important to our right-wing base and we can never afford to alienate them!  They provide the votes and our moral backbone Sarah. Promise them, Dobson and company, anything.  I mean anything they request, because once in power, you can ignore and duck them successfully like me.     Call Dick and Karl first thing every morning. Dick gives you the latest energy strategy in making money for us big-oil people.  I call it maximizing energy profits for friends and family, clever huh?  I'm so happy, you know energy too.     Karl supplies the day's talking points. When he says lie... Lie; insult... Insult; he's the best. Don't try and seduce Karl, and for goodness sake, avoid the public urinals in the White House.  For domestic issues, call upon our good, mutual, Alaskan, buddy Ted Stevens. As you have learned, domestic politics are a gold mine. If Ted doesn't have a solution, he has Jack Abranoff's 'cell' number.     Get yourself a good dog or little piggy, if you prefer. This a tough business Sarah, I mean tough, and you will need trusting companionship.     Start the day by raising hell, pick a foreign leader, call him a terrorist and tell him to go to hell. Boy, so simple and effective. Believe me, this keeps the press off your back. You'll be surrounded by people who always want to discuss important issues, but don't do it, that's what we pay the servants of a president to do.  Dad taught me this one, be king.  Of course, you can't tell some leaders like our royal Saudi business partners to go to hell.   I'll leave my don't F*** with list for you under the bedside lamp.     During each day's morning-brief and during cabinet and staff meetings, have everyone recite the loyalty to the president oath.  This oath comes from the document we treasure. The personal diary of Hitler.  Boy, he knew how to keep 'em down on the farm and fighting for country, didn't he Sarah?  The diary was secreted out of Hitler's bunker at the end of the war.  Dad used to revel in telling me the story of how we beat the Russians to it. Nixon passed it to Regan who gave it to Dad and he gave it to me. Don't concern yourself with John, we're bypassing him.  He's a liar, can't be trusted. Besides, I got a phone call back in the 2000 race and you know, he has black babies.      Now Sarah the big news.  Contained, in code, in the loyalty oath are specific directions for running the country.  Don't worry about experience.  Just follow the president's yellow-brick road outlined within.  I've never given Dick the decipher, ha, ha.  I really don't like him, he's uppity.  Here are some hints of the code's directions to wet you power desire Sarah:  immediately fire anyone who doesn't say yes Mrs. President.  Order lunch before 10a.m. because the kitchen is slow. They are government employees.  Take a helicopter ride to somewhere at least twice a week.  Only accept invitations to foreign countries that serve good food.  Schedule you day around your favorite TV programs. In the afternoon, practice putting in the Oval Office.  For evening entertainment, invite the five-star generals over to play "Blitzkrieg."  Don't play poker with the Secret Service, you'll lose.  Go to bed chanting obfuscate, obfuscate............       During press conferences,  repeat, repeat, repeat,  the golden mantra: "cut taxes, small government, God and country." Oh Sarah, it's so easy being the decider. There is much more, we'll talk soon, but right now I'm off to the situation room for a meeting inspired by you, our first preemptive strike at Russia roundtable.      Congratulations in advance on your victory and don't tell Jeb that you will choose him as Vice President the day after McCain's ....oops that's a secret. Mom and Dad want Jeb to be surprised.     Oh, I almost forgot.  Never take a call from the United Nations.
Your drill drill drill friend, George    

There are only two ways to lead people. Example and encouragement. Everything else is coercion, not leadership. A Presidential candidate can persuade, frighten, bribe, etc. but Leading people is different.

The dangers facing all of us now are not abstract concepts like Communism or even terrorism. They are pressing, personal dangers, that are much closer to home. We are living in a time when we can watch our leaders let an entire American city die right in front of our eyes on television. Twenty years ago, no matter who was President, would we have just let the people of New Orleans fend for themselves? Three years on would the city still be in the shape it is now? Our response to 9/11? Make war on the wrong country and continue funding fantastically expensive nuclear submarines and letting the military industrial complex run amok. To protect us how? This goes way beyond the failed presidency of George Bush. This is living proof of how incompetent and weak we are. How sick and vulnerable our society is. As well as protection from those who would blow us up for crazy religious reasons or run us out of business, Americans now need protection from other Americans who would deny us access to health care, poison us, steal our money, our jobs, and our homes. Your chances of Al Qaeda blowing you up are nothing compared to the chances of losing your health or your house or your life's savings in America today. Not all terrorists carry guns. Witness the effects on all Americans caused by recent speculation in the oil futures market. The sheer number of ways in which our government neglects us and sells us out to predatory corporations is staggering. Americans know this country is broken, perhaps permanently, in ways they have never experienced before. Broken far worse than the media or our institutions tell us because they are also part of the problem. The media, no longer a government watchdog or source of independent information, is the entertainment arm of the same predatory corporations that feed on us. And the public sees this. To them it's just another protection gone. And Obama sees this, gets it, and is responding to it in ways that McCain is unable and unwilling to. You would think he should win, even given the amount of racism still present in America. But just like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry before him, Obama is selling the wrong thing. Obama is selling "change" and "belief in ourselves". Well that's pretty thin gruel. And worse, it's not what the public is buying.

The American people are buying protection in 2008. Not because they want to, but because they need it. I'm not talking about protection from another terrorist attack, everyone's selling that. I mean actual, real, physical protection. Health care is up-close and personal. Your home is personal. Your job is personal. If Don Corleone was running he'd win in a cakewalk. The next President is going to have to really kick some ass. And mostly American ass at that. And not in the fake tough guy way that Bush demonstrated. Does anyone think the richest and most powerful American corporations will respond to an inspiring speech and a well crafted argument? Strength of character is paramount now. McCain is certainly vulnerable on that count, having sold all principle in his dash for power, but the maverick bullshit is an easy line to sell and is probably unassailable at this point. Obama must therefor appear in no uncertain terms to be the more powerful man. Not just an inspiring speaker but a real leader. Someone who can threaten his enemies if they won't go along with him. Make them pay a price. This applies mostly to members of his own party. Our plight requires nothing less than the utmost personal courage from our next President. And the public is not seeing that in Obama. And in the only way the public can judge these things, they're right. He won't win because he doesn't demonstrate, and most importantly, exemplify, the essential quality that is most called for in this crisis: Bravery.

Courage isn't the first virtue for nothing, everything else rests on it. I am not saying Barack Obama does not have courage. I'm just saying I haven't seen it. And I can't believe it until I see it. You can talk all you want about having the courage to stand up to special interests or your own party or anything else for that matter, but courage is way too important to take anyone else‘s word for. People only know it when they see it. Of course it's not the only quality we need in our President right now, but is it by far the most important, the quality without which we're sunk as a nation and the public knows it. To protect them the President doesn't have to be smart, he can hire that. He doesn't have to be likable, loyal, or honest all the time, just occasionally will do. But he does need to be brave, it's the one thing he can't outsource. And like it or not, the only way the public can judge Obama's courage in this ridiculous Kabuki called a campaign is for him to actually display a kind of personal bravery that is recognizable to all. John McCain is not only his opponent in the race but a stand-in for all the problems we face. How will our champion perform? Will Obama be a strong and hence, effective leader? We don't know. All we really know is what we see. And what we get to faintly see (on television) is which of the candidates is weakest. Not strongest. These campaigns are so controlled and fundamentally phony that an opportunity to show the kind of strength that would effectively translate to TV is rare. But on TV weakness shows right away. And that's what's been determining elections for the Presidency since the advent of TV. The one who blinks first loses. The one who sweats too much loses. The intellectual always loses. We don't vote "for" anyone, we always vote "against" someone. After all, out of 300 million Americans we get to choose between two. Two out of 300 million. And not scholars or wise elders or, with the exception of an occasional Dwight Eisenhower, anyone who's ever done much in the real world except get elected. They're politicians. Men and women who have a profession like mine; advertising. One that exploits real human needs with fantasies and diversion. At least if there were 3 or more you could vote "for" someone. But in a 2 man race for the most powerful office in the world it's only common sense to choose the lesser of two evils. And that's what we do. Presidents are elected by the failure of their oppenent, not positively, by reason of their own virtues.

When the McCain campaign came up with the phony "Pig/Lipstick" charge the other day Obama responded with an exasperated, slightly professorial, very measured, "Enough". Wrong response. This was a personal attack, not a political attack to paint Obama as a sexist or steer his campaign off message for two or three news cycles. The subject was irrelevant. It was a deliberate slap in Obama's face in public. A personal insult. And I don't know if Obama knows it. When he chose to respond by saying he expects their personal attacks and that doesn't bother him and that the ones who lose are you the voters, well that's just the wrong response. That's what Democrats always say. And in TV land, that comes across as weakness. That fatal weakness that elects the other guy. Even kids know that approach doesn't work. You can't get rid of the bully that way. Just like the kid in the schoolyard you must stand your ground and by whatever means necessary make the bullying stop. For the kid, if a fist fight is your last resort you must be prepared to take that step or expect the bullying to continue and be humiliated in public. Naturally we expect our leaders to have more sophisticated responses, but they must still in the end be effective. You must still make the bullying stop. It was no accident that the next day McCain's people ran an even more outrageous spot about Obama favoring sex education for kindergarden kids. Harder slap. What are you gonna do about it?

Karl Rove knows it doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. That's irrelevant. All that matters is that like Bill O'Reilly, you treat your opponent with contempt. You can score all the debating points you like but if he's sneering at you all the while, treating you like a doormat, you lose. You're weak. You've won the battle and lost the war. How can a weak man aspire to the most powerful job in the world?  The appropriate response is to:

1. Recognize the threat for what it is, an attempt to personally humiliate you, thereby proving your weakness, and emotionally respond appropriately. Make sure that your audience knows that you know that it is personal and you're not going to let it stand. Otherwise they think you're a phony or a wimp. Disdain, reasonableness or some form of superiority is all wrong, anger is the human response to a slap in the face. Remember how Bill Clinton spoke after the Oklahoma bombing? He wasn't the most popular guy right then, but when he showed genuine anger and pain and determination to get those responsible, we all soared and so did his popularity.

2. Confront the bully. You must move through him, not around him. How you do it is up to you, but your audience must see you taking the fight to your opponent. One obvious way would have been to return fire with "John McCain, yesterday your campaign deliberately and knowingly lied about me. I'm assuming that this bald-faced lie came from a campaign staffer and not you personally. As your campaign has challenged my personal integrity, I now challenge you to accept personal responsibility for this commercial. If it was an overzealous staffer I understand and do not expect a personal apology. But I do expect, as a man of honor, that if this is what you truly think, I will hear it from your own mouth. I and the American people await you answer."

3. Either way McCain answers or doesn't answer, you win. If he macho's up and says yeah, I'm calling you a scoundrel or the like, that's easy to attack because his charge was baseless. If he mumbles a weak answer such as he did on "The View" you don't let him off the hook, you press harder. "John McCain, you said I should choose my words more carefully and that I still owed Sarah Palin an apology. I don't because the commercial is false. And you didn't answer my question. Your campaign says I'm a sexist and that I want to teach kindergarden kids all about sex. That's trash and you know it. I expect more from you than that and so do the American people. So again sir, I'm still waiting for you to say those words yourself and not hide behind an anonymous announcer's voice or else admit your staff's error and take responsibility for it." No matter how he responds further you've won the real battle. You've already made this thing about him and won by standing up to the bully. You eloquently said it's time for them to own their mistakes. You have to make them do it, they're not going to do it because you asked.

4. You must be willing to take a beating if necessary. Even if a bully bests you he won't do it again. That's not what bullies are about. The bully needs to dominate and humiliate. If you fight him where he stands, then he has neither dominated nor humiliated you. Only beat you up and shown his true character and you have shown yours. 

The Republicans use this tactic because it works. From the Canuck Letter to Willie Horton to Fuzzy Math to Swift-Boating, all of these things are not about what they purport to be. They're public humiliations. And serious business. The Presidency is about one thing only, power. The Republicans are willing to fight to the death to hold it and count on the Democrats not having the stomach for a fight. The reason Republican lies and hypocracies never seem to matter to the public is that they don't. All they want is the strongest of the two. Which makes sense given what the Presidency is. Can the President fix our miserable economy? No. International financiers control that, not him. He can help it or hurt it but he can't fix it. He doesn't have the power. Can he (or she) save us from the environmental destruction we are hurtling toward? Help yes. Save no. Again, not enough power. Can he deliver even close to the health care the rest of the world enjoys? Not by himself. What he does have the power to do is protect us from internal or external threats, physical and economic (and economic protection these days means protection from the fear of starvation, again a form of physical protection). The only thing that matters to the public is who's bravest, therefore strongest, therefore the only one with even a ghost of a chance of giving us the protection we need.

Mr. Obama, the American people want to follow you. They want you to be strong because they need a strong leader so bad. You give a very good speech. And you've got the encouragement part down, but you're failing the example part. You must show real personal courage. As a leader, you must model the qualities you're trying to call forth. You must put others welfare above your own. If it means the forfeit of your political career in order to do the right thing, so be it. You chose this role. You are getting closer to being a real leader but even closer to losing this election because you're treating your opponent like Democrats have always treated their opponents. And that's not change I can believe in.

To: Governor Palin A Primer for You on My Doctrine. Dear Sarah,     First and foremost. Never talk in complete sentences. Use bad grammar, it appeals to bubba and confuses journalists taking notes.   Read "Mine Kampf" and "Animal Farm" for leadership clues.  Let God speak through you, this is especially important to our right-wing base and we can never afford to alienate them!  They provide the votes and our moral backbone Sarah. Promise them, Dobson and company, anything.  I mean anything they request, because once in power, you can ignore and duck them successfully like me.     Call Dick and Karl first thing every morning. Dick gives you the latest energy strategy in making money for us big-oil people.  I call it maximizing energy profits for friends and family, clever huh?  I'm so happy, you know energy too.     Karl supplies the day's talking points. When he says lie... Lie; insult... Insult; he's the best. Don't try and seduce Karl, and for goodness sake, avoid the public urinals in the White House.  For domestic issues, call upon our good, mutual, Alaskan, buddy Ted Stevens. As you have learned, domestic politics are a gold mine. If Ted doesn't have a solution, he has Jack Abranoff's 'cell' number.     Get yourself a good dog or little piggy, if you prefer. This a tough business Sarah, I mean tough, and you will need trusting companionship.     Start the day by raising hell, pick a foreign leader, call him a terrorist and tell him to go to hell. Boy, so simple and effective. Believe me, this keeps the press off your back. You'll be surrounded by people who always want to discuss important issues, but don't do it, that's what we pay the servants of a president to do.  Dad taught me this one, be king.  Of course, you can't tell some leaders like our royal Saudi business partners to go to hell.   I'll leave my don't F*** with list for you under the bedside lamp.     During each day's morning-brief and during cabinet and staff meetings, have everyone recite the loyalty to the president oath.  This oath comes from the document we treasure. The personal diary of Hitler.  Boy, he knew how to keep 'em down on the farm and fighting for country, didn't he Sarah?  The diary was secreted out of Hitler's bunker at the end of the war.  Dad used to revel in telling me the story of how we beat the Russians to it. Nixon passed it to Regan who gave it to Dad and he gave it to me. Don't concern yourself with John, we're bypassing him.  He's a liar, can't be trusted. Besides, I got a phone call back in the 2000 race and you know, he has black babies.      Now Sarah the big news.  Contained, in code, in the loyalty oath are specific directions for running the country.  Don't worry about experience.  Just follow the president's yellow-brick road outlined within.  I've never given Dick the decipher, ha, ha.  I really don't like him, he's uppity.  Here are some hints of the code's directions to wet you power desire Sarah:  immediately fire anyone who doesn't say yes Mrs. President.  Order lunch before 10a.m. because the kitchen is slow. They are government employees.  Take a helicopter ride to somewhere at least twice a week.  Only accept invitations to foreign countries that serve good food.  Schedule you day around your favorite TV programs. In the afternoon, practice putting in the Oval Office.  For evening entertainment, invite the five-star generals over to play "Blitzkrieg."  Don't play poker with the Secret Service, you'll lose.  Go to bed chanting obfuscate, obfuscate............       During press conferences,  repeat, repeat, repeat,  the golden mantra: "cut taxes, small government, God and country." Oh Sarah, it's so easy being the decider. There is much more, we'll talk soon, but right now I'm off to the situation room for a meeting inspired by you, our first preemptive strike at Russia roundtable.      Congratulations in advance on your victory and don't tell Jeb that you will choose him as Vice President the day after McCain's ....oops that's a secret. Mom and Dad want Jeb to be surprised.     Oh, I almost forgot.  Never take a call from the United Nations.
Your drill drill drill friend, George    

For background and since many seem interested in our PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend) allotments, here are the base facts.

Our state's coffers are the wealthiest in the nation thanks to our land’s natural resources. The Permanent Fund was implemented in 1976, to share the wealth with Alaskan residents.

(Alaska has no income or state sales tax.There are property taxes and local community sales taxes averaging between 3-7%. And yes, during tourist season, some communities raise these from the low end to the higher. That’s another issue.)
 
1976  - Voters pass a constitutional amendment to establish the Permanent Fund (Alaska Constitution, Article IX, Section 15).

1980 - First Permanent Fund dividend legislation enacted. The legislation established a program giving every adult Alaska resident $50 for every year of residency since statehood in 1959 and also established a Dividend Fund. Payment of dividends were stayed under litigation (Zobel v Williams) challenging the constitutionality of the program.

1982 - U.S Supreme Court ruled the 1980 legislation unconstitutional. In response to the litigation, the legislature passed legislation authorizing equal dividend payments to all residents.
The first dividend amount was $1,000. The first dividend checks were distributed June 14, 1982.

2003  - Online applications exceed 100,000 (155,226).

2005 - Online applications exceed 200,000 (211,464) and electronically signed applications exceed 100,000(129,822).

2007 - Over 2/3 of Alaskans apply online (420,596) and electronically signed applications exceed 275,000 (276,203).

2008 - According to state's calculation, 610,768 was figure used to equate amount for individual allotments.

For additional historical data: http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/historical/index.aspx

For the State of Alaska Permanent Fund Division: http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/ 

YEAR    AMOUNT      YEAR    AMOUNT

1994  -  $983.90           2008  -  $2,069.00*

1993  -  $949.46           2007  -  $1,654.00

1992  -  $915.84           2006  -  $1,106.96

1991  -  $931.34           2005  -  $845.76

1990  -  $952.63           2004  -  $919.84

1989  -  $873.16           2003  -  $1,107.56

1988  -  $826.93           2002  -  $1,540.76

1987  -  $708.19           2001  -  $1,850.28

1986  -  $556.26           2000  -  $1,963.86

1985  -  $404.00           1999  -  $1,769.84 

1984  -  $331.29           1998  -  $1,540.88

1983  -  $386.15           1997  -  $1,296.54

1982  -  $1000.00         1996  -  $1,130.68

                                     1995  -    $990.30 

                 TOTAL $30,805.41 (per individual)
 
*2008 disbursements will include additional $1200 for energy rebate.

How is the dividend calculated?

The amount of the dividend is calculated by dividing the amount available for distribution from the Permanent Fund earnings account by the number of eligible applicants. The calculation is based on a statutory formula under Alaska Statute 43.23.025 and is required by law to be announced by October 1. (Governor Palin decreed early disbursal this year for September 11th - make what you will of her mandate.)

The PFD does help our economy. Statewide, retail businesses have PFD sales.   Many do use their dividend to stock up on winter supplies, pay for winter fuel and other expenses.

The PFD gives the option to have all or part of an indvidual's PFD be allocated to a College Tuition savings program.

Base Alaska economic date: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/

Note: In Alaska, food, housing and medical costs are more expensive; gas and heating fuel is about 25% average more than lower 48; all retail goods are of greater expense. (Next time you look in a catalog to make purchase, Alaskan's pay greater amounts for shipping and handling as opposed to lower 48.)

Wages are not, if at all, much higher than other states. July unemployment figures are at 6.9%.

PFD Fraud is an issue and the state has not put in place the tools needed to resolve this abuse.

Dividends are subject to federal taxes and must be declared on annual income tax forms.

Coming Soon:

AK 2008 Energy Rebate:
Palin's Campaign Strategy 101?

There are only two ways to lead people. Example and encouragement. Everything else is coercion, not leadership. A Presidential candidate can persuade, frighten, bribe, etc. but Leading people is different.

The dangers facing all of us now are not abstract concepts like Communism or even terrorism. They are pressing, personal dangers, that are much closer to home. We are living in a time when we can watch our leaders let an entire American city die right in front of our eyes on television. Twenty years ago, no matter who was President, would we have just let the people of New Orleans fend for themselves? Three years on would the city still be in the shape it is now? Our response to 9/11? Make war on the wrong country and continue funding fantastically expensive nuclear submarines and letting the military industrial complex run amok. To protect us how? This goes way beyond the failed presidency of George Bush. This is living proof of how incompetent and weak we are. How sick and vulnerable our society is. As well as protection from those who would blow us up for crazy religious reasons or run us out of business, Americans now need protection from other Americans who would deny us access to health care, poison us, steal our money, our jobs, and our homes. Your chances of Al Qaeda blowing you up are nothing compared to the chances of losing your health or your house or your life's savings in America today. Not all terrorists carry guns. Witness the effects on all Americans caused by recent speculation in the oil futures market. The sheer number of ways in which our government neglects us and sells us out to predatory corporations is staggering. Americans know this country is broken, perhaps permanently, in ways they have never experienced before. Broken far worse than the media or our institutions tell us because they are also part of the problem. The media, no longer a government watchdog or source of independent information, is the entertainment arm of the same predatory corporations that feed on us. And the public sees this. To them it's just another protection gone. And Obama sees this, gets it, and is responding to it in ways that McCain is unable and unwilling to. You would think he should win, even given the amount of racism still present in America. But just like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry before him, Obama is selling the wrong thing. Obama is selling "change" and "belief in ourselves". Well that's pretty thin gruel. And worse, it's not what the public is buying.

The American people are buying protection in 2008. Not because they want to, but because they need it. I'm not talking about protection from another terrorist attack, everyone's selling that. I mean actual, real, physical protection. Health care is up-close and personal. Your home is personal. Your job is personal. If Don Corleone was running he'd win in a cakewalk. The next President is going to have to really kick some ass. And mostly American ass at that. And not in the fake tough guy way that Bush demonstrated. Does anyone think the richest and most powerful American corporations will respond to an inspiring speech and a well crafted argument? Strength of character is paramount now. McCain is certainly vulnerable on that count, having sold all principle in his dash for power, but the maverick bullshit is an easy line to sell and is probably unassailable at this point. Obama must therefor appear in no uncertain terms to be the more powerful man. Not just an inspiring speaker but a real leader. Someone who can threaten his enemies if they won't go along with him. Make them pay a price. This applies mostly to members of his own party. Our plight requires nothing less than the utmost personal courage from our next President. And the public is not seeing that in Obama. And in the only way the public can judge these things, they're right. He won't win because he doesn't demonstrate, and most importantly, exemplify, the essential quality that is most called for in this crisis: Bravery.

Courage isn't the first virtue for nothing, everything else rests on it. I am not saying Barack Obama does not have courage. I'm just saying I haven't seen it. And I can't believe it until I see it. You can talk all you want about having the courage to stand up to special interests or your own party or anything else for that matter, but courage is way too important to take anyone else‘s word for. People only know it when they see it. Of course it's not the only quality we need in our President right now, but is it by far the most important, the quality without which we're sunk as a nation and the public knows it. To protect them the President doesn't have to be smart, he can hire that. He doesn't have to be likable, loyal, or honest all the time, just occasionally will do. But he does need to be brave, it's the one thing he can't outsource. And like it or not, the only way the public can judge Obama's courage in this ridiculous Kabuki called a campaign is for him to actually display a kind of personal bravery that is recognizable to all. John McCain is not only his opponent in the race but a stand-in for all the problems we face. How will our champion perform? Will Obama be a strong and hence, effective leader? We don't know. All we really know is what we see. And what we get to faintly see (on television) is which of the candidates is weakest. Not strongest. These campaigns are so controlled and fundamentally phony that an opportunity to show the kind of strength that would effectively translate to TV is rare. But on TV weakness shows right away. And that's what's been determining elections for the Presidency since the advent of TV. The one who blinks first loses. The one who sweats too much loses. The intellectual always loses. We don't vote "for" anyone, we always vote "against" someone. After all, out of 300 million Americans we get to choose between two. Two out of 300 million. And not scholars or wise elders or, with the exception of an occasional Dwight Eisenhower, anyone who's ever done much in the real world except get elected. They're politicians. Men and women who have a profession like mine; advertising. One that exploits real human needs with fantasies and diversion. At least if there were 3 or more you could vote "for" someone. But in a 2 man race for the most powerful office in the world it's only common sense to choose the lesser of two evils. And that's what we do. Presidents are elected by the failure of their oppenent, not positively, by reason of their own virtues.

When the McCain campaign came up with the phony "Pig/Lipstick" charge the other day Obama responded with an exasperated, slightly professorial, very measured, "Enough". Wrong response. This was a personal attack, not a political attack to paint Obama as a sexist or steer his campaign off message for two or three news cycles. The subject was irrelevant. It was a deliberate slap in Obama's face in public. A personal insult. And I don't know if Obama knows it. When he chose to respond by saying he expects their personal attacks and that doesn't bother him and that the ones who lose are you the voters, well that's just the wrong response. That's what Democrats always say. And in TV land, that comes across as weakness. That fatal weakness that elects the other guy. Even kids know that approach doesn't work. You can't get rid of the bully that way. Just like the kid in the schoolyard you must stand your ground and by whatever means necessary make the bullying stop. For the kid, if a fist fight is your last resort you must be prepared to take that step or expect the bullying to continue and be humiliated in public. Naturally we expect our leaders to have more sophisticated responses, but they must still in the end be effective. You must still make the bullying stop. It was no accident that the next day McCain's people ran an even more outrageous spot about Obama favoring sex education for kindergarden kids. Harder slap. What are you gonna do about it?

Karl Rove knows it doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. That's irrelevant. All that matters is that like Bill O'Reilly, you treat your opponent with contempt. You can score all the debating points you like but if he's sneering at you all the while, treating you like a doormat, you lose. You're weak. You've won the battle and lost the war. How can a weak man aspire to the most powerful job in the world?  The appropriate response is to:

1. Recognize the threat for what it is, an attempt to personally humiliate you, thereby proving your weakness, and emotionally respond appropriately. Make sure that your audience knows that you know that it is personal and you're not going to let it stand. Otherwise they think you're a phony or a wimp. Disdain, reasonableness or some form of superiority is all wrong, anger is the human response to a slap in the face. Remember how Bill Clinton spoke after the Oklahoma bombing? He wasn't the most popular guy right then, but when he showed genuine anger and pain and determination to get those responsible, we all soared and so did his popularity.

2. Confront the bully. You must move through him, not around him. How you do it is up to you, but your audience must see you taking the fight to your opponent. One obvious way would have been to return fire with "John McCain, yesterday your campaign deliberately and knowingly lied about me. I'm assuming that this bald-faced lie came from a campaign staffer and not you personally. As your campaign has challenged my personal integrity, I now challenge you to accept personal responsibility for this commercial. If it was an overzealous staffer I understand and do not expect a personal apology. But I do expect, as a man of honor, that if this is what you truly think, I will hear it from your own mouth. I and the American people await you answer."

3. Either way McCain answers or doesn't answer, you win. If he macho's up and says yeah, I'm calling you a scoundrel or the like, that's easy to attack because his charge was baseless. If he mumbles a weak answer such as he did on "The View" you don't let him off the hook, you press harder. "John McCain, you said I should choose my words more carefully and that I still owed Sarah Palin an apology. I don't because the commercial is false. And you didn't answer my question. Your campaign says I'm a sexist and that I want to teach kindergarden kids all about sex. That's trash and you know it. I expect more from you than that and so do the American people. So again sir, I'm still waiting for you to say those words yourself and not hide behind an anonymous announcer's voice or else admit your staff's error and take responsibility for it." No matter how he responds further you've won the real battle. You've already made this thing about him and won by standing up to the bully. You eloquently said it's time for them to own their mistakes. You have to make them do it, they're not going to do it because you asked.

4. You must be willing to take a beating if necessary. Even if a bully bests you he won't do it again. That's not what bullies are about. The bully needs to dominate and humiliate. If you fight him where he stands, then he has neither dominated nor humiliated you. Only beat you up and shown his true character and you have shown yours. 

The Republicans use this tactic because it works. From the Canuck Letter to Willie Horton to Fuzzy Math to Swift-Boating, all of these things are not about what they purport to be. They're public humiliations. And serious business. The Presidency is about one thing only, power. The Republicans are willing to fight to the death to hold it and count on the Democrats not having the stomach for a fight. The reason Republican lies and hypocracies never seem to matter to the public is that they don't. All they want is the strongest of the two. Which makes sense given what the Presidency is. Can the President fix our miserable economy? No. International financiers control that, not him. He can help it or hurt it but he can't fix it. He doesn't have the power. Can he (or she) save us from the environmental destruction we are hurtling toward? Help yes. Save no. Again, not enough power. Can he deliver even close to the health care the rest of the world enjoys? Not by himself. What he does have the power to do is protect us from internal or external threats, physical and economic (and economic protection these days means protection from the fear of starvation, again a form of physical protection). The only thing that matters to the public is who's bravest, therefore strongest, therefore the only one with even a ghost of a chance of giving us the protection we need.

Mr. Obama, the American people want to follow you. They want you to be strong because they need a strong leader so bad. You give a very good speech. And you've got the encouragement part down, but you're failing the example part. You must show real personal courage. As a leader, you must model the qualities you're trying to call forth. You must put others welfare above your own. If it means the forfeit of your political career in order to do the right thing, so be it. You chose this role. You are getting closer to being a real leader but even closer to losing this election because you're treating your opponent like Democrats have always treated their opponents. And that's not change I can believe in.

17 You shall not murder.

Yes, he murdered hundreds of innocent civilians during the Vietnam War, because many of his targets were schools, temples, hospitals, etc.  He will be willing to commit future murders by sending our troops off to fighting unnecessary wars.

18 Neither shall you commit adultery.
It is known that he screwed around on his first wife and married his rich young beer heiress mistress.  Also, rumored, but not proven, that he has screwed around on Cindy.

19 Neither shall you steal.

Currently he is trying to steal an election and Obama's campaign slogan, but that pales by the fact that he steals from the taxpayers on a regular basis to help his rich buddies.

20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.

"False witness" is just a fancy way of saying "LYING," which we all have watched in amazement as he and his cohorts are doing that on a daily basis, unashamedly and without remorse.

21 Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Fairly obvious that he covets Obama's ideas, covets power, covets importance and coveted Cindy's wealth enough to ditch the first wife to get his hands on it. 

So here's the Family Values Candidate.  I guess I don't understand morality as well as I thought I did.

17 You shall not murder.

Yes, he murdered hundreds of innocent civilians during the Vietnam War, because many of his targets were schools, temples, hospitals, etc.  He will be willing to commit future murders by sending our troops off to fighting unnecessary wars.

18 Neither shall you commit adultery.
It is known that he screwed around on his first wife and married his rich young beer heiress mistress.  Also, rumored, but not proven, that he has screwed around on Cindy.

19 Neither shall you steal.

Currently he is trying to steal an election and Obama's campaign slogan, but that pales by the fact that he steals from the taxpayers on a regular basis to help his rich buddies.

20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.

"False witness" is just a fancy way of saying "LYING," which we all have watched in amazement as he and his cohorts are doing that on a daily basis, unashamedly and without remorse.

21 Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Fairly obvious that he covets Obama's ideas, covets power, covets importance and coveted Cindy's wealth enough to ditch the first wife to get his hands on it. 

So here's the Family Values Candidate.  I guess I don't understand morality as well as I thought I did.

These results indicate a good deal about where this race is heading insofar as national coverage indicates. When asked, “Do you give a rat’s ass about polling numbers?” 15 percent said they, “couldn’t give two shits about what the numbers say, could you give us something more.” 25 percent returned with the query, “Why are you calling me again, I told you I don’t know.” 30 percent replied, “I don’t really watch the news because it’s just an echo chamber.” The remaining 30 percent bitched and moaned about how Franklin Roosevelt was the devil and George Bush was the second coming of Jesus. 

These numbers really shed some light on the candidacy’s chances for victory. The George Bush as Jesus portion is 99 percent likely to go for John McCain, and it’s the most solidly stupid and immovable bloc in the election. Nuclear winter wouldn’t make them vote for Obama. What remains unclear is whether Obama can capture the echo chamber complainers over and build a winning coalition. We’ll have to wait until November to see if he does. More polls to come between now and then. 

These results indicate a good deal about where this race is heading insofar as national coverage indicates. When asked, “Do you give a rat’s ass about polling numbers?” 15 percent said they, “couldn’t give two shits about what the numbers say, could you give us something more.” 25 percent returned with the query, “Why are you calling me again, I told you I don’t know.” 30 percent replied, “I don’t really watch the news because it’s just an echo chamber.” The remaining 30 percent bitched and moaned about how Franklin Roosevelt was the devil and George Bush was the second coming of Jesus. 

These numbers really shed some light on the candidacy’s chances for victory. The George Bush as Jesus portion is 99 percent likely to go for John McCain, and it’s the most solidly stupid and immovable bloc in the election. Nuclear winter wouldn’t make them vote for Obama. What remains unclear is whether Obama can capture the echo chamber complainers over and build a winning coalition. We’ll have to wait until November to see if he does. More polls to come between now and then. 

As a long-time listener of This American Life on NPR, I recall the episode called Modern Jackass.  This term is defined as someone who talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about.  If you haven't heard the episode, I highly recommend it.

Watching the Palin interview, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw her try to explain the Bush Doctrine.  It was a page right out of Modern Jackass.  What's really funny is that the longer the person stays on a topic when they are experiencing Modern Jackass, the worse it gets. 

I have a feeling that we will see a lot of this as she has to go off the teleprompter and answer real questions from the voters and the media.  Let's hope they ask deep questions that try to get to her core understanding of the complex issues. 

As a long-time listener of This American Life on NPR, I recall the episode called Modern Jackass.  This term is defined as someone who talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about.  If you haven't heard the episode, I highly recommend it.

Watching the Palin interview, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw her try to explain the Bush Doctrine.  It was a page right out of Modern Jackass.  What's really funny is that the longer the person stays on a topic when they are experiencing Modern Jackass, the worse it gets. 

I have a feeling that we will see a lot of this as she has to go off the teleprompter and answer real questions from the voters and the media.  Let's hope they ask deep questions that try to get to her core understanding of the complex issues. 

As a long-time listener of This American Life on NPR, I recall the episode called Modern Jackass.  This term is defined as someone who talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about.  If you haven't heard the episode, I highly recommend it.

Watching the Palin interview, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw her try to explain the Bush Doctrine.  It was a page right out of Modern Jackass.  What's really funny is that the longer the person stays on a topic when they are experiencing Modern Jackass, the worse it gets. 

I have a feeling that we will see a lot of this as she has to go off the teleprompter and answer real questions from the voters and the media.  Let's hope they ask deep questions that try to get to her core understanding of the complex issues. 

I'd like to direct your attention to this clip from Josh's post early this morning.

Here's the choice remark, which comes just after the 1:00 mark:

"I was for infrastructure being built in the state and it's not inappropriate for a mayor or a governor to request and to work with their congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget, along with every other state, a share of the federal budget for infrastructure."

So, I ask you: WTF is an earmark then?  Has she not offered precisely the very definition of an earmark?

I ask this somewhat facetiously since it should be painfully obvious to any thinking observer that Sarah Palin is patently full of shit.  This is no different than the "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" offered to us by the Bush administration when there were no real WMD to be found.

Josh also offers this remark in his post:

We're at a key moment -- where we learn if there is any consequence in this election for serial lying. It's a question that only the major media outlets will be able to answer.

I agree with him in part.  I think we are certainly at a key moment in this campaign.  The McCain campaign has thrown down the gauntlet thusly:

A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.”

What's being said here seems pretty clear to me: "You've got your truth, we've got ours."  The McCain campaign is going all-in with a pack of lies and betting that enough people will buy it.

So, will they?  And is the outcome really dependent on whether the media highlights these lies fervently enough?

Or, more importantly: Can we expect enough people to see these lies for what they are without having to be told so?

All politicians stretch the truth to some degree, however subtly.  I get the sense that most people are savvy on this point.  Even so, McCain's tack here is decidedly different.  It isn't just a stretching the truth.  It isn't even just a single, outright lie.  It's a collection of demonstrable falsehoods oft repeated.  It has indeed become the thrust of the man's campaign.

This where John McCain has steered the Straight Talk Express.

There have been a lot posts here recently about why people vote the way they do.  I've even offered some commentary to that effect myself.  These comments inevitably end up addressing whether some voters are dumb or gullible or ignorant or misinformed or indifferent.

I want to leave all that aside for a moment to address this point: Whether or not you believe any of the aforementioned adjectives accurately describe any portion of the electorate, John McCain and his campaign have decided that they can lie to you repeatedly and without apology.  Whether or not you think some other voters might be stupid, John McCain is betting that you, or your neighbors or friends or family, most certainly are.  He's betting that he can lie right to your face, all the while acting out the height of hypocrisy by claiming that he's the most honorable and honest guy around, and that you either won't know any better or won't care.

I say we can leave questions about whether some voters are dense until after the election.  If McCain can win like this, I'll know the answer.

The notion that Democrats have not become the monster to compete with the monster, that is, telling lies or half truths or out of context propaganda, is false. Yes they have.

Sarah Palin does not run the McCain campaign. Professional political campaign staff do. They're in the same region of politics as 527s and one-sided bloggers. And they're on both sides.

The unsubstantiated and out of context lies (the more subtle the more insidious) about Sarah Palin, and, the attacks on her family justified by her family appearing with her (Obama's family was onstage at the DN convention too) are uncivilized, illiberal, ungentlemanly, graceless and fraudulent.

No article by Josh here has mentioned the many violent threat allegations and their truth or falsehood regarding the Trooper Wooten. Or the fact that the guy tasered his 10 year old. Were you aware of that? Here's a detailed article about the man who was apparently the source of the fear, by Anchorage Daily News:

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html

Put yourself in the Palin's shoes regarding the threats, the fear for her father and family members. Or God forbid, let Josh do the same. What would you do? You know that restraining orders don't work if someone's determined. You know that police agencies often cover for their own. The investigation stalls. What then?

My sense of this is that it is at least just as possible for there to be an intra-agency coverup or soft-discipline for a trooper as there is to be some kind of bona fide scandal in which the Palins are just trying to be "mean."

There's more to this I'll put in another post. I just don't understand the incompleteness of Josh's posts regarding the essential contextual circumstances of Palin's brother-in-law's profile.

Police officers have shot down personal adversaries all across the country after blowing their tops. It's not at all unheard of. Domestic violence also.

Wooten was divorced 4 times. Where is the investigation by the crack Muckraker team into those past divorces and whether there was violence? What about the whole truth?

Yep, you are reading this one right...from HuffPo. So Paul Volcker, Greenspan's replacement supports Obama and Greenspan is panning his friend John McCain's tax cuts...what does that tell you.?

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the country can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without corresponding spending reductions.

Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said today on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''

McCain has said he would balance the cost of most of his tax cuts with budget reductions, while providing few details beyond eliminating earmarks and other pork-barrel spending, which have totaled about $171 billion since 2001. Democratic nominee Barack Obama is proposing fewer tax cuts and more ambitious spending programs.

Read the whole story here.

It looks like we've got a couple of big McCain lies so far today.  Lie Number One: it turns out Sarah Palin never actually went to Iraq: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/palin-never-went-to-iraq_n_126186.html

And lie Number Two: seems no one can account for the crowd numbers they're crowing about.  According to Bloomberg:

In recent days, journalists attending the rallies have been raising questions about the crowd estimates with the campaign. In a story on Sept. 11 about Palin's attraction for some Virginia women voters, Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher estimated the crowd to be 8,000, not the 23,000 cited by the campaign.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics

Help me out here--is this a tragedy or a comedy?

From this new WaPo article on Woodward's book, we have McCain telling Rice (speaking about Iraq):  "We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime."

The WaPo article is interested in the fact that McCain was privately more concerned about Iraq in 2007 than his public statements from then and since would have us believe.  But I'm struck by the idea that we "lost" another war.  Is he talking about Vietnam, or Korea?  Surely he's not talking about Desert Storm.  I'm thinking Vietnam. 

And yet, this is not the language usually employed by the right anymore.  And I wonder if McCain has used it before, on the record?  It was the sort of sentiment Kerry was vilified for.  And, in light of McCain's "Win" and "Lose" rhetoric about Iraq, I wonder what more he might have to say about this.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/13/woodward_mccain_privately_pess.html

An Andrew Sullivan reader commented that McCain was running against reality, but I think a lot of his constituents are prepared to vote against reality. Some of them are currently trying to redefine reality on Wikipedia.

I'm not going to link to any of this because it seems to be changing by the minute.

Wikipedia: Bush Doctrine

4 September 2008

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe a policy outlined in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002[1]

8 September 2008

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

Added at the top 04:20 12 September 2008 but gone by 04:27

The Bush Doctrine is his world view, Charlie.

Added on 04:23, 12 September 2008

Current Events

In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, GOP Vice-Presidential pick Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) was unable to define the Bush Doctrine for the nation, despite the fact that her son shipped out to Iraq on the same day of the interview, ostensibly one more serviceman deploying because of our government's adherence to the Bush Doctrine. Irony, thy name is Palin. See Interview Segments

Revised on 04:29, 12 September 2008

Current Events

In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, GOP Vice-Presidential pick Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) was unable to define the Bush Doctrine for the nation, despite the fact that her son shipped out to Iraq on the same day of the interview. See Interview Segments

Governor Palin described the Bush Doctrine in the following manner: "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation." This is one of the most succinct and accurate descriptions of the doctrine that has ever been stated.

261 revisions later, at 16:09, 13 September 2008

The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; the doctrine of preemptive war; and the president's second-term "freedom agenda" as outlined in his second Inaugural Address.[1]

The first usage of the term may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense well before September 11th.[2][3]

Later the phrase came to describe the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[4] Later still, it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[5][6][7] This represented a continuation of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy of roll-back, as opposed to the older Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine; and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine. The "Bush Doctrine" was never enacted into law.

The main elements of one Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[8] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine,[9][10][11] and was updated in 2006.[12]

Following the mind-numbing devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Rev. Hagee sermonized to his San Antonio congregation thusly: “When you violate God’s will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you.  Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn.”  More than a year after Katrina, in a September 18, 2006 interview with NPR’s Terri Gross, Rev. Hagee reiterated his considered judgment that God had used Katrina to punish New Orleans because, “the city had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were the recipients of the judgments of God for that.”

So, Rev. Hagee, my question to you, ye who knoweth the mind of God, what are the sins for which Galveston and Houston are now being punished by Hurricane Ike?

While I wouldn’t presume to know the mind of God in such matters, I do know a thing or two about the mind of the Religious Right, so let me discern Rev. Hagee’s response in advance.  Dr. James Dobson’s explanation of Hurricane Gustav is instructive in this endeavor.  Dr. Dobson’s organization, Focus on the Family, had issued a national call to prayer, asking Christians all across America to pray for a storm of “Biblical proportions” to disrupt the Democratic National Convention.  As it turned out, the sun smiled brightly upon the Democrats, but the first day of the Republican National Convention was disrupted by a hurricane.  Called upon to account for this outcome, Dr. Dobson quoted from Matthew 5:45 in a Fox News interview saying “it rains on the just and unjust” as if inclement weather is just some random act of nature.  In other words, hurricanes are punishment from God when the Religious Right says so and hurricanes are random acts of nature, when the Religious Right says so.   

Yep, a lot has changed in the last 26 years, but the Democrats haven't.

They know how to use computers and send e-mails and they say they understand the economy. Oh, I know, a bunch of them voted for NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Phil Gramm's Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. But they're all better now. And besides, they hardly ever vote for tax cuts for large corporations and they really do care about the middle class. That's why when the American people said stop the Iraq war in 2006 they got real mad at the Republicans, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid scolded them pretty darn good. They're absolutely right that after one President who's out of touch, we can't afford another one. We can't afford a President  who brings a squirt gun to a street fight, who allows an old man and a cheerleader to bitch-slap him in public. 

The Republicans have changed a lot in the last 26 years. Like the smart predators they are, they observed their prey and learned which tactics worked best to slaughter them. Ronald Reagan's gentle "There you go again" to Jimmy Carter in 1980, has evolved into 2008's Bill O'Reilly sneering and openly laughing his special laugh of derision at a candidate stupid enough to "debate" him. Doesn't even require the head wolf anymore. The sheep even thanks him now and smiles, confident that he has proven his courage to the other sheep by walking right into the wolf's lair and speaking up for himself. The poor pitiful sheep doesn't understand, he doesn't know where he is or what the contest is even about. He still thinks that because there are so many more in his flock and the wolves are getting fewer in number that the future surely belongs to him. The sheep doesn't see that it just takes fewer wolves to fleece him. The job is so much easier now.

The Republicans know what the prize is. The prize is power. The power of a few to control the many. The sweet, sentimental Democrats, God bless them, are still dreaming their dreams of The Great Society. They just know if they try a litter harder and round up a few more sheep, the land will belong to them and there will be peace in the valley. The sheep think they can convince all the little birds who sit in the trees and watch this drama that they (the sheep) would rule the land differently. They're not quite sure how. After all, they can't get rid of the wolves. The wolves own the companies the little birds work at. And they own all the banks and the birdhouses too. And the Military Industrial Complex and other things with big names that the birds don't understand. And they carry an especially shameful secret. There are some sheep, leaders and elders in the flock who have gotten fat off the table scraps that the wolves gave them. And they don't really live down in the valley anymore. They live up in the hills with the wolves. Not only do they have to get the wolves off their backs, they've got these wolves in sheep's clothes to deal with. 

The public sits on the sidelines and watches this drama every four years and doesn't know what to make of it. They know they're never going to be in charge of anything. They just want to be left alone to make their way in the world and raise their families. They know how the world really works much more than the Democrats do. But the Democrats have a lot of smart guys and say a lot of things that, if they think about, are true. Bitter experience has taught them not to ignore smart advice, but bitter experience has also taught them something deeper and more true, that only the strong survive. How can these gentle sheep expect to run things better when they can't or won't defend themselves? It just goes against common sense. And these Democrats, for all their bright ideas, don't seem to have much common sense. The public knows the Republicans feed off them. The Democrats think they need to remind them of it all the time, which kind of insults their intelligence. In fact, the Democrats do that a lot. Insult the public's intelligence. Sometimes in the way the Republicans say, by talking down to them, but mostly the Democrats insult the public's intelligence by still, after all these years, not knowing how to fight and at the same time asking to be Commander-in Chief. That hasn't changed in the last 26 years, it's gotten worse. Bill Clinton is the exception that proves the rule.

Can you really be surprised by right wing lies and hypocrisy over and over? Can any person of minimal intelligence be continually astonished by an event that occurs again and again and again right in front of their own eyes? In any other situation in life wouldn't that response be considered proof of a mental defect? How many times do you have to trip over a crack before you walk around it? The public sees the Democrats getting bullied and publicly humiliated by the Republicans every four years and watches the Democrats turn to the media for protection, whining that the bully is at it again. "Show the public how the Republicans lie!" cry the Democrats. Still not understanding that by responding in this way, they provide visual proof to the public of their ineffectualness, their stubborn refusal to learn from their mistakes, their impotence. The public thinks to themselves, "When are these people going to learn?" Better to stick with the devil I know than take a chance on these weaklings. 

My 85 year old father-in-law can't e-mail and he can't use a computer either, but he doesn't allow people to bully him and he's vital and relevant and very much in step with the great number of Americans who know all too well that our democracy is falling apart at the seems and that we need a very strong leader, right now, someone who doesn't have to be told, or shown how, to fight back.

A clear majority of Americans, people from both parties and all regions of the country, want the occupation of Iraq to end and American troops to come home.  In one sense, the long-derided “Mission Accomplished” banner hanging over George Bush’s flight-suit May 1, 2003 photo-op was correct:  if the mission was to unseat Saddam Hussein and make sure that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction, it was indeed over when Saddam went into hiding and the search for such weapons turned up zero, zilch,  nada, nothing.

So why are we still there, 5 ½ years later;  4155 American military men and women dead; 30, 568 wounded, many catastrophically and irreversibly wounded; and $14 million dollars per hour going down the rat hole, while the Iraqis pile up billions of oil dollars in New York banks?  You remember—the oil dollars the Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld said would pay for their  “war on the cheap.” 

Well, there was an insurgency, or was it al Qaeda in Iraq, or Iranian troublemakers, or Shia militia, or Sunni militia?  Or just a response to what was clearly a planned, permanent occupation of Iraq? 

Those who know the foreign policy fixations of the neo-conservative movement are not surprised to find out that there are hundreds of military bases in Iraq, some of them mega-bases that resemble small cities.  Here is Tom Englehardt, in “The Greatest Story Never Told”:

In fact, in the last five-plus years, untold billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on the construction and upgrading of those bases. When asked back in the fall of 2003, only months after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer then "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, proudly indicated that "several billion dollars" had already been invested in those fast-rising bases. Even then, he was suitably amazed, commenting that "the numbers are staggering." Imagine what he might have said, barely two and a half years later, when the U.S. reportedly had 106 bases, mega to micro, all across the country.

By now, billions have evidently gone into single massive mega-bases like the U.S. air base at Balad, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. It's a "16-square-mile fortress," housing perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops, contractors, special ops types, and Defense Department employees. As the Washington Post's Tom Ricks, who visited Balad back in 2006, pointed out -- in a rare piece on one of our mega-bases -- it's essentially "a small American town smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq." Back then, air traffic at the base was already being compared to Chicago's O'Hare International or London's Heathrow -- and keep in mind that Balad has been steadily upgraded ever since to support an "air surge" that, unlike the President's 2007 "surge" of 30,000 ground troops, has yet to end.

www.tomdispatch.com/?month=2008-6

So if you are looking for an answer to the question, “Why can’t the troops come home if the surge worked?”, at least part of the answer is that Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons never intended to end the occupation.  Why else would they spend billions on bases in Iraq?  Englehardt’s story offers a sobering look at the size and scope of those bases, as well as the extraordinary secrecy surrounding them.  We don’t see those bases because the Bush administration doesn’t want us to think about them, or about the policy that they inevitably point to:  a permanent occupation of Iraq.

That’s why John McCain can be so flippant about staying in Iraq a hundred years.  For once, he wasn’t lying.  He knows that staying in Iraq, to maintain control of the oil and to use the country as a permanent staging ground for control of the Middle East, is the neo-conservative plan.  And he’s on board.  For once, John McCain told us the truth:  if he and his ilk have their way, the United States will be in Iraq just as we are in Korea:  permanently.

Thus:  the first reason to vote for Barack Obama:  he never wanted to invade Iraq in the first place.  Barack Obama is not a neo-conservative dreaming of American Empire.  That is George Bush (and his brother Jeb), Dick Cheney, and John McCain.  Barack Obama will end the war, the occupation and bring most troops home.  From the Obama website: 

Obama believes any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases.   http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#status-of-forces

But Obama goes further than just calling for troops to come home.  He reminds us that we can’t afford to stay in Iraq.  On March 20, 2008, he spoke to a crowd in West Virginia: 

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting for the people of West Virginia. For what folks in this state have been spending on the Iraq war, we could be giving health care to nearly 450,000 of your neighbors, hiring nearly 30,000 new elementary school teachers, and making college more affordable for over 300,000 students. 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBH8j

The truth is, we can’t afford to spend money on the Iraq occupation.  Here are the facts.  According to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes in Vanity Fair, “The war will likely cost this country three trillion dollars."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/stiglitz200804

That three trillion is an abstract figure for most of us; here’s how it breaks down in more graspable terms.  In Iraq, we spend:

Per Month - $10.3 billion

Per Week - $2.4 billion

Per Day - $343 million

Per Hour - $14 million

Per Minute - $238,425

Per Second - $3,973

http:// theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-much-does-iraq-war-cost-per-month.html

Data from Amy Belasco, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,” Congressional Research Service (updated February 8, 2008).

So it is a clear choice.  A vote for John McCain is a vote for permanent occupation.  For $10.3 billion dollars down the rat hole, month after month.  For more dead and wounded American men and women, for higher and higher costs for taking care of our veterans—because in spite of the fact that John McCain would not support Jim Webb’s bipartisan New G.I. bill, Barack Obama did.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to end the occupation, to “foreswear” permanent bases, and to use that $10.3 billion a month to help our own people and rebuild our own country.  Case closed.

Yep, a lot has changed in the last 26 years, but the Democrats haven't.

They know how to use computers and send e-mails and they say they understand the economy. Oh, I know, a bunch of them voted for NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Phil Gramm's Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. But they're all better now. And besides, they hardly ever vote for tax cuts for large corporations and they really do care about the middle class. That's why when the American people said stop the Iraq war in 2006 they got real mad at the Republicans, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid scolded them pretty darn good. They're absolutely right that after one President who's out of touch, we can't afford another one. We can't afford a President  who brings a squirt gun to a street fight, who allows an old man and a cheerleader to bitch-slap him in public. 

The Republicans have changed a lot in the last 26 years. Like the smart predators they are, they observed their prey and learned which tactics worked best to slaughter them. Ronald Reagan's gentle "There you go again" to Jimmy Carter in 1980, has evolved into 2008's Bill O'Reilly sneering and openly laughing his special laugh of derision at a candidate stupid enough to "debate" him. Doesn't even require the head wolf anymore. The sheep even thanks him now and smiles, confident that he has proven his courage to the other sheep by walking right into the wolf's lair and speaking up for himself. The poor pitiful sheep doesn't understand, he doesn't know where he is or what the contest is even about. He still thinks that because there are so many more in his flock and the wolves are getting fewer in number that the future surely belongs to him. The sheep doesn't see that it just takes fewer wolves to fleece him. The job is so much easier now.

The Republicans know what the prize is. The prize is power. The power of a few to control the many. The sweet, sentimental Democrats, God bless them, are still dreaming their dreams of The Great Society. They just know if they try a litter harder and round up a few more sheep, the land will belong to them and there will be peace in the valley. The sheep think they can convince all the little birds who sit in the trees and watch this drama that they (the sheep) would rule the land differently. They're not quite sure how. After all, they can't get rid of the wolves. The wolves own the companies the little birds work at. And they own all the banks and the birdhouses too. And the Military Industrial Complex and other things with big names that the birds don't understand. And they carry an especially shameful secret. There are some sheep, leaders and elders in the flock who have gotten fat off the table scraps that the wolves gave them. And they don't really live down in the valley anymore. They live up in the hills with the wolves. Not only do they have to get the wolves off their backs, they've got these wolves in sheep's clothes to deal with. 

The public sits on the sidelines and watches this drama every four years and doesn't know what to make of it. They know they're never going to be in charge of anything. They just want to be left alone to make their way in the world and raise their families. They know how the world really works much more than the Democrats do. But the Democrats have a lot of smart guys and say a lot of things that, if they think about, are true. Bitter experience has taught them not to ignore smart advice, but bitter experience has also taught them something deeper and more true, that only the strong survive. How can these gentle sheep expect to run things better when they can't or won't defend themselves? It just goes against common sense. And these Democrats, for all their bright ideas, don't seem to have much common sense. The public knows the Republicans feed off them. The Democrats think they need to remind them of it all the time, which kind of insults their intelligence. In fact, the Democrats do that a lot. Insult the public's intelligence. Sometimes in the way the Republicans say, by talking down to them, but mostly the Democrats insult the public's intelligence by still, after all these years, not knowing how to fight and at the same time asking to be Commander-in Chief. That hasn't changed in the last 26 years, it's gotten worse. Bill Clinton is the exception that proves the rule.

Can you really be surprised by right wing lies and hypocrisy over and over? Can any person of minimal intelligence be continually astonished by an event that occurs again and again and again right in front of their own eyes? In any other situation in life wouldn't that response be considered proof of a mental defect? How many times do you have to trip over a crack before you walk around it? The public sees the Democrats getting bullied and publicly humiliated by the Republicans every four years and watches the Democrats turn to the media for protection, whining that the bully is at it again. "Show the public how the Republicans lie!" cry the Democrats. Still not understanding that by responding in this way, they provide visual proof to the public of their ineffectualness, their stubborn refusal to learn from their mistakes, their impotence. The public thinks to themselves, "When are these people going to learn?" Better to stick with the devil I know than take a chance on these weaklings. 

My 85 year old father-in-law can't e-mail and he can't use a computer either, but he doesn't allow people to bully him and he's vital and relevant and very much in step with the great number of Americans who know all too well that our democracy is falling apart at the seems and that we need a very strong leader, right now, someone who doesn't have to be told, or shown how, to fight back.

Last night I heard Gov. Sarah Palin tell Charles Gibson, "I'm a Title IX girl, Charlie." And in a 2007 interview she said, "I had a great upbringing under Title IX. I can't imagine where I'd be without the opportunities provided to me in sports."
 
I wonder if she appreciates that she's the beneficiary of a great liberal reform, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to which Title IX is an amendment. The education amendments to that act, passed in 1972 to forbid discrimination in education on the basis of gender in any institution receiving federal funds, are enforced by a federal agency, the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. 

The author of Title IX was a Japanese-American female Democrat from Hawaii, Rep. Patsy Mink.

  

Today's New York Times editorial on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin is devastatingly on target. As someone once said in a different context, "Where is the outrage?" If progressives cannot make the case against this travesty, then shame on us.

Perhaps she thoughtlessly did so to be a cheerleader for McCain, but when Palin took up earmarks as her cause celebre, and when joyfully every Republican incants her "Thanks but no thanks" remark, one can see, retrospectively, the campaign and party preparing to be hoist by their own petard.  All that remains is to light the fuse, so to speak.

Having been called out even by Charlie Gibson, and now everywhere from CNN to "The View," one hears Palin and sycophants like Cantor, when having their noses rubbed in the fact, back-peddling and giving what amounts to a mere description of how the earmark method works.  The clear implication is that earmarks -- if you know how the process works -- are perfectly okie dokie, what's the problem?  Palin, for example, spoke like a provincial porker and not a national candidate inveighing against earmarks when she described how her requests for earmarks arise from local sources and how these earmarks are the way a state taps into federal money.

And she was absolute right.  The problem is, now, rather than just being a liar (she was just a liar when she claimed to have killed the federal earmark for the bridge) she has become a hypocrite, at best.

Her amphibolies of earmarks are these: first, she makes a description of the earmark process substitute for a substantive justification of earmarks.  Second, she tries to make her very marginal criticism of the earmark process substitute for a criticism of the substance of earmarks.  Process in place of substance!

She has yet to be called out on this as far as I know: the media needs to put these two sides of her mouth together: Does she want to get rid of earmarks tout court, or does favor earmarks so long as the process is more transparent?  The scandal of the bridge was not procedural, but substantive; McCain's objection to earmarks is not procedural but substantive.  She's a hypocrite if she claims she's against earmarks but justifies her own earnarks on procedural grounds.

Is this what she means by reforming Washington?  Is this why she's on the ticket? Watch out K Street, Carry Nation is coming!

As for McCain on Palin's amphibolies:  either he knows she's chin deep in earmarks and has no credibility with regard to the bridge to nowhere, in which case he's lying to insist on her being opposed to earmarks, as he did on "The View," or he really believes that what he's saying is true and therefore is really out of touch with reality in a very simple and basic way. 

Wow! It's hard to say which alternative I hope is true.

Perhaps she thoughtlessly did so to be a cheerleader for McCain, but when Palin took up earmarks as her cause celebre, and when joyfully every Republican incants her "Thanks but no thanks" remark, one can see, retrospectively, the campaign and party preparing to be hoist by their own petard.  All that remains is to light the fuse, so to speak.

Having been called out even by Charlie Gibson, and now everywhere from CNN to "The View," one hears Palin and sycophants like Cantor, when having their noses rubbed in the fact, back-peddling and giving what amounts to a mere description of how the earmark method works.  The clear implication is that earmarks -- if you know how the process works -- are perfectly okie dokie, what's the problem?  Palin, for example, spoke like a provincial porker and not a national candidate inveighing against earmarks when she described how her requests for earmarks arise from local sources and how these earmarks are the way a state taps into federal money.

And she was absolute right.  The problem is, now, rather than just being a liar (she was just a liar when she claimed to have killed the federal earmark for the bridge) she has become a hypocrite, at best.

Her amphibolies of earmarks are these: first, she makes a description of the earmark process substitute for a substantive justification of earmarks.  Second, she tries to make her very marginal criticism of the earmark process substitute for a criticism of the substance of earmarks.  Process in place of substance!

She has yet to be called out on this as far as I know: the media needs to put these two sides of her mouth together: Does she want to get rid of earmarks tout court, or does favor earmarks so long as the process is more transparent?  The scandal of the bridge was not procedural, but substantive; McCain's objection to earmarks is not procedural but substantive.  She's a hypocrite if she claims she's against earmarks but justifies her own earnarks on procedural grounds.

Is this what she means by reforming Washington?  Is this why she's on the ticket? Watch out K Street, Carry Nation is coming!

As for McCain on Palin's amphibolies:  either he knows she's chin deep in earmarks and has no credibility with regard to the bridge to nowhere, in which case he's lying to insist on her being opposed to earmarks, as he did on "The View," or he really believes that what he's saying is true and therefore is really out of touch with reality in a very simple and basic way. 

Wow! It's hard to say which alternative I hope is true.

 
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a VEEP with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
It's time we stop, BLOGGERS, what's that sound Everybody look what McCain's throwin' down
The battle lines have been drawn
If you're not "RIGHT" they say you're wrong
Young people getting involved
Getting so much heat from Limbaugh!!
It's time we stop McCain, what's that sound
Everybody look what he's throwin' down
What a field-day for the VEEP
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
All of them Say, PA L I N lies
It's time they stop McCain, what's that sound
Everybody look what he's throwin' down
"PALINora" strikes deep
Into your life SHE will creep
It starts when you're always afraid,
You step out of line, CIA comes and takes you away
We better stop McCain, what's that sound
Everybody look what he's throwin' down
The end of the world, you will see
Starts with her as V.-P.
To vote we all must make sure
Cause that is the only cure
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what Palin's throwin' down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what she's throwin' down
Stop, BLOGGERS, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down.

We hear a lot about “single-issue” voters, for whom one issue determines their choice for the presidency.  Here are ten issues so important to the safety, security, and prosperity of our country that we cannot afford even four more years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, of Karl Rove’s style of Republican rule.  On these ten issues, Barack Obama’s policies will bring not just a change of occupancy in the White House, but the change we need to pick America on the right road again:

1. Iraq and the Economy

2. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Crumbling Military

3. Middle-Class Tax Relief

4. Climate Change 

5. Fair Trade

6. “Homeland” Security, formerly known as Civil Defense

7.  Rebuilding American Infrastructure

8. Eliminating Karl Rove Politics

9. Cleaning up the Justice Department and Protecting the Constitution

10. Veterans

Each alone is a reason to vote for Barack Obama. Taken together, they represent a clear vision of what Obama means by “the change we need.” These issues give us a clear picture of how we can turn the page after eight years of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. These issues show us why this country will be better off with a Democrat, Barack Obama, in the White House.

Over the next few weeks, I will post an analysis of why each issue is enough reason to vote Republicans out, and Democrat Barack Obama in. 

We hear a lot about “single-issue” voters, for whom one issue determines their choice for the presidency.  Here are ten issues so important to the safety, security, and prosperity of our country that we cannot afford even four more years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, of Karl Rove’s style of Republican rule.  On these ten issues, Barack Obama’s policies will bring not just a change of occupancy in the White House, but the change we need to pick America on the right road again:

1. Iraq and the Economy

2. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Crumbling Military

3. Middle-Class Tax Relief

4. Climate Change 

5. Fair Trade

6. “Homeland” Security, formerly known as Civil Defense

7.  Rebuilding American Infrastructure

8. Eliminating Karl Rove Politics

9. Cleaning up the Justice Department and Protecting the Constitution

10. Veterans

Each alone is a reason to vote for Barack Obama. Taken together, they represent a clear vision of what Obama means by “the change we need.” These issues give us a clear picture of how we can turn the page after eight years of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. These issues show us why this country will be better off with a Democrat, Barack Obama, in the White House.

Over the next few weeks, I will post an analysis of why each issue is enough reason to vote Republicans out, and Democrat Barack Obama in. 

I'm writing another diary that may or may not ever get posted, but I had to stop to point out a very important meta-lie that's going unnoticed among the veritable landslide of specific lies that the McCain campaign has become. 

When the ladies from "The View" were slapping McPow around for being a liar (and what else did they expect from an old serial philanderer?), he got so flustered that he forgot the Official Campaign Defense to charges that they're lying. 
"We include factual backup in every one of our TV spots"

Got that?  Its not a lie because we have a source.  If someone else said it first, its not a lie. 

If we say the sky is green and we cite to a source that tells us that green light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of roughly the 520 to 570 nm that makes our statement that the sky is green true.  We have a source. 

If we say that the sun and all heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth in little epicycles, and we cite Ptolemy, we have backup for our statement so we're not lying. 

If we elicit perjurous statements from a witness, the fact that the witness said it rather than us means that we're not lying and, therefore, we're entitled to present the perjury as truth when we make our closing argument. 

And if we say that uppity so and so was deliberately disrespecting our Good Christian Sarah when he said you can put lipstick on a pig and we show he did in fact utter those words, we're not lying because we have backup--he did, in fact, say lipstick on a pig and its a demonstrable fact that Sarah Palin is our candidate for vice president. 

If we wrap any number of lies and distortions around a single demonstrably true fact, that one true fact makes all the lies and distortions also be true. 

So see, not a lie because we have backup.  How dare you accuse us of lying when we have a source.  And besides, Obama is running tough ads against us and we wouldn't have had to do this if only he had agreed to run his campaign the way we wanted him to.  We have a source for that too. 

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm

Dr. Egon Spengler: There’s something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don’t cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, “bad?”
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That’s bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

I laugh so that I do not cry.

One last story on the Palin interview before  I return to bashing John McCain for being a dishonorable liar.

Reading Ross Douthat this morning, young-ish conservative author of "Grand New Party", I was struck by the unflattering comparisons of Sarah Palin to Dubya.  In fact, the title of the blog article is "Palin Channels Dubya".

On the blog "The Next Right", Kristen Soltis writes, in reference to Sarah Palin regurgitation of talking points:

There were oh so many times when I could practically envision the talking points. "We shouldn't second guess Israel.  No matter what, they are our ally.  We don't second guess Israel."  And so it went. "We can't second guess Israel, Charlie."
  Whether that's the correct policy or not what I'm debating. What matters is that it didn't seem like it was really her opinion. I can't see inside the mind of Sarah Palin, so I have no place saying if it is ACTUALLY her opinion or not.  But the feel of it? It didn't feel genuine.  It felt like a repeated talking point.  It felt "done".   And if you're going to try not to sound political, of all the things you can't afford to do, it's sound like Bush. Remember - he was the candidate of cowboy authenticity, shoot-em-straightness, of "lets do this thing, lets get them terrorists".   No doubt Palin has been prepped by Steve Schmidt (Rove's protege), Nicolle Wallace (former Bush staffer).  So maybe that's why I'm so sensitive to Bush-sounding language.

And it's not just the regurgitation of tough sounding talking points and the use of forceful language to answer questions that called for nuance, it's the almost complete and utter lack of intellectual curiosity about events that occur outside her little provincial fiefdom.

Ignorance of key issues + a lack of intellectual curiosity + a desire to seem decisive and tough = a terrifying redo of George W. Bush.

If McCain wins, there is a 1 in 3 chance that we will have a President Palin.  For anyone that has lived through the Bush Presidency, that should be a terrifying thought.

Conservative David Frum summed it up best yesterday on the National Review Online, comparing Palin to Dubya:

A president does not need to know everything. In fact, it's certainly impossible for him (or her) to know everything that he might possibly need to know. That's what the White House staff - and beyond them the whole vast apparatus of the US government - is for. Collectively, the US government knows a lot. And all of that knowledge is at the service and disposal of the president. All the president has to do is - is ask.

But that's not as easy as it sounds.

Somebody who knew President Bush well once remarked to me. "You'll notice he never asks questions."

"Why not?" I said.

"Because he doesn't know what it's okay for him not to know."

I haven’t written a whole lot about Palin, because a) I find the whole thing somewhat depressing, and b) it merely confirmed a lot of what I’d already thought about McCain’s lack of judgement and integrity, and frankly, there wasn’t much chance of me voting for the old man even before he picked a demonstrably unqualified right-wing nutjob to be his second.

Still, it’s obvious that the pick has had a real effect on the race– the right-wing evangelicals have one of their own to get excited about, and it’s crazy the number of them I’ve seen gloss right over the top of the ticket and explain to the camera why they’re so excited about voting for Sarah. On the Newshour this week, one of them even described her as “the next President of the United States.” I mean, how does John feel about that?

Anyway, two takes on this that I’ve seen in the last couple days that seem important. First, James Fallows writing at the Atlantic, explains why her “What Bush Doctrine?” moment with Charlie Gibson the other night should be a disqualification for higher office:

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A. 

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

 

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals. 

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture,  the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion.  So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

There’s more at the link, and worth your time to read it. The bottom line: Sarah Palin is the second coming of George W. Bush: a toxic combination of righteous self-assurance and a complete ignorance about the issues we need our leaders to be experts on. Scary.

Even scarier, it seems she has real appeal beyond the hard core evangelical base. Via Ta-Nehisi Coates, we get this column from Marc Fisher in the Washington Post, detailing how some women are embracing her because she’s just like them.

"She's just as flawed as we are," Tweddle said. "It's not the fact that she's a woman but the way she does it all. And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."

...

Like many at the rally, Victoria Robinson-Worst sees Palin's lack of experience as an asset. "I know people who have experience who are totally incompetent," said Robinson-Worst, who lives in Loudoun County, designs wedding flowers and raises two children. "And I know people who have no experience who step in and get it right. I mean, women can do amazing things."

This is where culture wars, identity politics and self-suffocating academic theories of deconstructionism have led us: Authority is suspect. Experience is corrupting. Ignorance is strength?

Next will be "war is peace." Or have we already heard that one?

Again, the whole thing is definitely worth reading, and man does it ever depress me. This is the worst of America: suspicious of elites, eager to embrace ignorance as some badge of authenticity, dividing us up into us v. them. It’s been part of the Republican game plan for a generation, and it still works.

Leave aside the policies that have left us poorer economically, in reputation around the world, and morally, in all our torture-embracing ugliness. Bush, Palin, and all their fellow travelers deserve our undying enmity for that alone.

I haven’t written a whole lot about Palin, because a) I find the whole thing somewhat depressing, and b) it merely confirmed a lot of what I’d already thought about McCain’s lack of judgement and integrity, and frankly, there wasn’t much chance of me voting for the old man even before he picked a demonstrably unqualified right-wing nutjob to be his second.

Still, it’s obvious that the pick has had a real effect on the race– the right-wing evangelicals have one of their own to get excited about, and it’s crazy the number of them I’ve seen gloss right over the top of the ticket and explain to the camera why they’re so excited about voting for Sarah. On the Newshour this week, one of them even described her as “the next President of the United States.” I mean, how does John feel about that?

Anyway, two takes on this that I’ve seen in the last couple days that seem important. First, James Fallows writing at the Atlantic, explains why her “What Bush Doctrine?” moment with Charlie Gibson the other night should be a disqualification for higher office:

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A. 

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

 

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals. 

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture,  the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion.  So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

There’s more at the link, and worth your time to read it. The bottom line: Sarah Palin is the second coming of George W. Bush: a toxic combination of righteous self-assurance and a complete ignorance about the issues we need our leaders to be experts on. Scary.

Even scarier, it seems she has real appeal beyond the hard core evangelical base. Via Ta-Nehisi Coates, we get this column from Marc Fisher in the Washington Post, detailing how some women are embracing her because she’s just like them.

"She's just as flawed as we are," Tweddle said. "It's not the fact that she's a woman but the way she does it all. And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."

...

Like many at the rally, Victoria Robinson-Worst sees Palin's lack of experience as an asset. "I know people who have experience who are totally incompetent," said Robinson-Worst, who lives in Loudoun County, designs wedding flowers and raises two children. "And I know people who have no experience who step in and get it right. I mean, women can do amazing things."

This is where culture wars, identity politics and self-suffocating academic theories of deconstructionism have led us: Authority is suspect. Experience is corrupting. Ignorance is strength?

Next will be "war is peace." Or have we already heard that one?

Again, the whole thing is definitely worth reading, and man does it ever depress me. This is the worst of America: suspicious of elites, eager to embrace ignorance as some badge of authenticity, dividing us up into us v. them. It’s been part of the Republican game plan for a generation, and it still works.

Leave aside the policies that have left us poorer economically, in reputation around the world, and morally, in all our torture-embracing ugliness. Bush, Palin, and all their fellow travelers deserve our undying enmity for that alone.

Knowing full well that we Democrats cannot slow in our work to take back our country on Nov. 4, it occurs to me that in comparing the present timeline of campaign coverage by the MSM to the coverage in 2000 and 2004, with the examples this week of MSM "journalism" (Gibson interview, McCain on the View, actual MSM reporting of Gov. Palin's contradictory statements), that there has been a pushback by some MSM earlier and with greater force than occurred in 2000 and 2004. The pushback this time is actually occurring prior to the general election. That has to be a good thing for Obama and the rest of the Dems. Will this be the start of a "surge" by MSM??

Still, Rush has apparently not discovered that he is once again (not that he ever stopped) carrying the water for the Repubs like he did for the Bushies in 2006. Any bets on when his next epiphany happens??  

Obama really needs to run a face-to-camera ad where he uses the "L" word, maybe as part of the Lincoln quote.  Then the media storm would spread the word.

Barbara Walters successfully pinned down McCain as a liar. In the interview, Walters stated the numerous lies that McCain has chosen, and thereby defined him as a liar. Obama needs to repeat McCain's  lies over and over again in all of the debates so that it becomes ingrained in the political conscience of the American people. By concentrating on McCain's lies it will help create doubts about the Republican candidate's judgement and fitness to be president. In preparing for the debates,  Obama needs to watch Walter's performance on the View.

Thanks to Judith Warner's blog at the New York Times, I was able to discover this seminal essay by Professor Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia, called "Why People Vote Republican", which should be required reading for all Democrats... In it is the secret of why they lose elections, and perhaps why they deserve to lose elections. Here is a short but meaty excerpt:

First, imagine society as a social contract invented for our mutual benefit. All individuals are equal, and all should be left as free as possible to move, develop talents, and form relationships as they please. The patron saint of a contractual society is John Stuart Mill, who wrote (in On Liberty) that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Mill's vision appeals to many liberals and libertarians; a Millian society at its best would be a peaceful, open, and creative place where diverse individuals respect each other's rights and band together voluntarily (as in Obama's calls for "unity") to help those in need or to change the laws for the common good.
     Psychologists have done extensive research on the moral mechanisms that are presupposed in a Millian society, and there are two that appear to be partly innate. First, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to suffering and harm, particularly violent harm, and so nearly all cultures have norms or laws to protect individuals and to encourage care for the most vulnerable. Second, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to issues of fairness and reciprocity, which often expand into notions of rights and justice. Philosophical efforts to justify liberal democracies and egalitarian social contracts invariably rely heavily on intuitions about fairness and reciprocity.
     But now imagine society not as an agreement among individuals but as something that emerged organically over time as people found ways of living together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other's selfishness, and punishing the deviants and free-riders who eternally threaten to undermine cooperative groups. The basic social unit is not the individual, it is the hierarchically structured family, which serves as a model for other institutions. Individuals in such societies are born into strong and constraining relationships that profoundly limit their autonomy. The patron saint of this more binding moral system is the sociologist Emile Durkheim, who warned of the dangers of anomie (normlessness), and wrote, in 1897, that "Man cannot become attached to higher aims and submit to a rule if he sees nothing above him to which he belongs. To free himself from all social pressure is to abandon himself and demoralize him." A Durkheimian society at its best would be a stable network composed of many nested and overlapping groups that socialize, reshape, and care for individuals who, if left to their own devices, would pursue shallow, carnal, and selfish pleasures. A Durkheimian society would value self-control over self-expression, duty over rights, and loyalty to one's groups over concerns for outgroups.
     A Durkheimian ethos can't be supported by the two moral foundations that hold up a Millian society (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). My recent research shows that social conservatives do indeed rely upon those two foundations, but they also value virtues related to three additional psychological systems: ingroup/loyalty (involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism), authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates), and purity/sanctity (a relatively new part of the moral mind, related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble). These three systems support moralities that bind people into intensely interdependent groups that work together to reach common goals. Such moralities make it easier for individuals to forget themselves and coalesce temporarily into hives, a process that is thrilling, as anyone who has ever "lost" him or herself in a choir, protest march, or religious ritual can attest.
    In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment. READ IT ALL

When I say that the Democrats have to reclaim as much as they can of the ground of William Jennings Bryant or lose all chance of creating a more just society in America, this is what I mean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

It is a terrible ad. The computer part is counter productive. Who is Obama trying to convince, those who are computer literate, or those rural and small town older voters who mostly do not use a computer, or surf the web.

All this ad does is make those who already support him, feel good,  and probably alienates those same voters that he has been trying to woo, ever since Hillary won them, in the primaries.

When is Obama going to start to throw a barrage of clean sharp jabs. He better wake up.  All he has to do is learn how to put some small word short sentences together that tells the working class voters why McCain is bad for them.

So far, Obama has been talking in rambling incoherent tones that leaves even his supporters in the audiences confused and listless.

Look at how he answered the questioner, in the town hall meeting, that asked him when he was going to start hitting McCain hard. The answer was vague, rambling, incoherent, and full of excuse making.  Obama better start to show some steel, and start to throw some crisp verbal punches. He put his own supporters, at that townhall meeting yesterday, into a coma.

People will not vote for someone who does not show the will and passion to fight.
That is how they evaluate will he fight for us. So far Obama is failing the test.

He has become a punching bag for McCain, and he is always trying to find a way to dance out the corner, instead of punching out of it, and then turning and going on the attack.

If Obama is going  to continue campaigning in such a passive, and defensive manner, then he has already lost.

With all due and considerable respect for those who urge us to forget about Sarah Palin and focus immediately and exclusively on John McCain, they're wrong. In the long run, yes, we must focus on McCain exclusively. That time is not quite upon us, though it must come within the next week to 10 days. For the moment—and I stress the temporary nature of this advice—Sarah Palin is a valuable topic of criticism. Don't let up on her this week. It's absolutely true that McCain and Obama are at the top of their tickets and that the race will turn on this contest as opposed to the bottom of the ticket. It's true that in the last 40 days of the campaign, we must hammer McCain with every thread we post. And we should do it on the major issues that give Obama the advantage: change, the economy, health care, the economy, Iraq, etc. For now, however, McCain is using Palin as a shield. And she is an effective one only because the truth about her has not sunk in. We need to focus on her until the shield cracks. As long as McCain is able to prop up his campaign with the theme of two reformers for the price of one, his Dynamic Duo narrative will win too many votes±. Too many white female votes, in particular. The fact that McCain could die in office to leave Palin president may repulse us, but it is not an uncomfortable thought for many swing voters. The need to be made uncomfortable. The more Palin is exposed, the more her choice exposes McCain's poor judgment. The more her record receives a dose of daylight, the more voters who rushed to her support will recoil from the ticket. The Republicans won't acknowledge the truth until it's forced down their throats. And the media will abandon the subject if we just ignore Palin. Not every journalist is a Barbara Walters. Give Sarah hell for a few more days. Er, I mean, tell the truth about her. Then teach McCain the meaning of war.

I posted yesterday that the Washington Post had a front page article about Cindy's past addiction to painkillers.  It was pretty detailed and wasn't overly-varnished.  

In the comments section of the online version of that article, a poster provided a link to an interesting overview of the whole fallout from the exposure of Cindy's involvement w/narcotics in the Arizona Republic in 1994:  http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/161307.

This article includes excerpts from the journal that Tom Gosinski kept while he was in Cindy's employment at the American Voluntary Medical Team (AMVT), which he turned over to the DEA after Cindy fired him.  This is what launched their investigation of her.

There's a lot of detail in that article that will raise lots of eyebrows about Cindy and John and her family, but for me, the one fact that's most pertinent in all of this that should be considered in today's Presidential race is the illegalities in how Cindy was obtaining these narcotics and how those were handled once it all came to light.  I actually lived in AZ during this period, but I had no idea of what was really transpiring in all of this.  It was extremely whitewashed in the AZ press.  It was presented as a story of Cindy's heroic struggle w/addiction, and that's it.

In fact, I don't see this as being about addiction, I see it as being about criminal activity and about a very wealthy, powerful, priviledged, politically-connected individual who got away with it without consequence, while others paid a heavy price for her crimes (specifically, Tom Gosinski and Max Johnson).

Prior stories that I've seen about this have suggested that maybe Cindy was simply taking narcotics from the AVMT inventories.  But, this article and Gosinski's journal suggests that she was doing much more than that.  It appears that she may have been using the DEA numbers of multiple doctors (without their knowledge) who provided services for AVMT to obtain narcotics for personal use under the guise of them being for the use of AVMT.  That's a different thing altogether - in essence, she was writing her own prescriptions, fraudulently.  And the article suggests that, if this had been prosecuted by the State of AZ, Cindy would have been charged with a Class 3 felony and faced 10 to 20 years in prison, with 2/3 served before being eligible for parole.

Is this background that we ought to be looking at and thinking about in regards to the wife of a Presidential candidate?  Old news?  Personal business?  We're talking about criminal activity that was swept under the rug.  I'd like for the Press to pull this out, shake off the dust, and have another good look at it.  We're talking about putting this man in the office of President of the United States.

Sarah Palin responded to Charles Gibson's question about the bridge to nowhere by stating that the t-shirt she was pictured holding up in front of here bore the zip code of the community that would be served by the bridge "and not everybody in that community supported the bridge."
What's she driving at?  That she sided with those that didn't support the bridge?  Then why is she holding up the t-shirt?  I don't get the context we're supposed to put on the fact that not everyone supported the bridge even while she clearly did.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I have not read much about Sarah Palin's battle to keep Polar Bears off the Endangered Species list.

It is an important issue because, as with George Bush, Sarah Palin ignores the prevailing scientific evidence whether it be with Global Warming, where she thinks it is more cyclical than man-made, or in this case where polar bears maybe destine for extinction.

First this May 14, 2008 press release excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior:

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

Now Kempthorne is a Bushie and is no friend of the environment, but on this one he had to go with the the "best available science."

However, Palin whose own brand of scientific evidence did not hold up, took a Bush administration tactic to save gas and oil exploration. She is suing to challenge the ruling.

Here is more from the Anchorage Daily News about the Palin suit (Check my italicized wording, this was written long before she was seen as a serious pick as a VP candidate. Is there a long standing pattern here? ) :

The (Palin lawsuit) announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

The May 20, 2008 story added: 

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

So on August 4, Sarah Palin, no friend of science nor polar bears but a very good friend of advocates of oil and gas exploration, announced  that a lawsuit was filed  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

It's been two weeks.  Two weeks since a Tsunami of Alaskan Soap Opera has hit the nation.  In that time one person has garnered more "names" faster than anything I can recall.

I'm having trouble remembering all those names.  So I'm putting out this simple request.  For posterity.  Please refresh my memory.  Or vote for your favorite name for this person whom I initially termed:  The Trophy Running Mate.  Since that day, I have come up with a few more choice terms, my most recent of which is "Lady mcReadiness- Not!"  There's also Lady mcSham.  Not to forget:  Mooselini.   Many more.

But I simply can't recall them all.  So perhaps you might want to add to my list.  And post a link, if you like.  Or not.  This shouldn't take much time from your busy Saturday.  Thanks in advance!

P.S.  I am well aware that some believe we should ignore the repub ticket this weekend.  I am not of that persuasion.  I believe very strongly that we must not take our eyes off the ball for one instant.  One thing stands in Obama's way - his opposition.  Clear the path for Obama and we march to victory.  Friday was a very good day, evidence, to my mind, that the MSM is now catching on to the disaster which constitutes the repub ticket.

P.P.S.  If you have a post you'd like to rescue, put in a link for it and add your recommend to this one.  That way we can get double and triple and quadruple the play... from just one post.

How much did you pay for gas yesterday or today? 

My town's gas in southern Illinois was selling for around $4.05 last night (don't have a clue about this morning's yet; but one gas station said it will top out at $6 per gallon) and regular unleaded tanks were going empty by 5pm central time.

Let's keep the gas stations honest and let's report our findings to our Congressmen/women, the soon to be President and the CURRENT President -- so that maybe he'll release some reserves and help an already struggling economy.

REALISM is the issue in this election, as in all of them. Sooner or later, this country is going to be forced to take a hardheaded, informed look at the serious problems it will inevitably face, and make equally hardheaded, informed choices about what to do about them. We won't actually get to "decide" about that: At some nearby, finite point, we will either join together to take control of events, or events will join together to take control of us.

On that score, I must confess that I'm not terribly impressed with either candidacy to date:

One has immersed itself in atmospherics and stagecraft, promoting a vague urgency about "change", while being unable or unwilling to risk hard specifics as to just what that might actually mean. It gives the impression of looking forward, but it's hard to tell what it  actually SEES out there.

The other has actually been even worse: It clings to discredited and/or irrelevant totems, appears openly and even proudly disdainful of any objective, established base of factual knowledge, and regularly and routinely substitutes cant, revealed faith, and intuition for reason. It has "learned nothing, and forgotten nothing" in its years of authority. JUST THIS ONCE, I'll use Gov. Palin to illustrate my point: To give her due credit, she is vaguely likeable and attractive. She has obvious skills in what passes today for "communication" :   The art of saying little of originality or substance, in a clever, appealing way. She only knows a very few things, but she knows them well, and has gotten a lot of mileage out of them so far.  She may have a real future, but it's hard to imagine she has ALREADY arrived at it. If her recent ABC interview answers are a real indicator, they clearly show to any impartial observer the yawning, un-self-conscious gap between her exploration and grasp of the world, and the enormous and entirely new and original challenges that world is sure to impose in the years ahead. She speaks not so much for herself, but as a metaphor of the vacuousness of the current Republican Party: Its engrained inability to learn or to change.

We must choose, however imperfect the choice or however unsure the implications. We must pick a THEME, go with it, and hope for the best.  I choose the FUTURE, however vaguely or uncertainly understood or explained. I choose the inquiring and the curious.  I choose to improvise. I choose to think and hope anew. I choose to take a chance on something that gives us all some reasonable prospect of moving beyond this predictable, played-out rut, and getting on up there to confront the REAL "enemy" head-on, right NOW, with new weapons better suited to the job.

I choose Obama. A realist has no other option.

Guys, this is up over at HuffingtonPost.com's Off the Bus page:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanie-mills/id-give-my-left-front-paw_b_126081.html

and, as with all my posts, at

http://deaniemills.com

Hope this goes on through:


In the final week before the Texas Democratic primaries, Bill Clinton made an exhausting, whirlwind tour of the state on behalf of his wife, Hillary.  Each and every day, he visited at least five small cities and towns across the state.

I remember when he came to Abilene.  My e-mail notification of his visit arrived at five p.m. on the day before, which gave me no time to rearrange my schedule so that I could make the 100-mile drive for the event.  At the time, as an Obama precinct captain, I was working day and night making phone calls and blogging and contacting other Democrats and so on, so I didn't see how I could manage the trip.

Turns out, I didn't have to.  Clinton was scheduled to arrive at about seven p.m., I think, and supporters and the curious began to gather at the large community barn near the small airport two hours before that.

Also, all three local news networks had camera crews posted.

And Clinton was, as usual, notoriously late.  As the hours passed, it began to rain, and a reluctant Secret Service permitted the people to enter the barn so they could at least remain dry while they waited, sitting on hay bales and standing around the perimeters of the building.

At least one local network, KTAB, the CBS affiliate, announced that it intended a live broadcast of the entire event.  Most of their ten p.m. news broadcast came from the barn, where people still waited, on a Wednesday night.  And even though most had children in schools and jobs to get to bright and early the next morning, very few left.

Finally, at eleven p.m. that night, after the crowd had been waiting five or six hours, Bill Clinton arrived.  He clambored up into the back of a pick-up truck that had been decorated with flags, and spoke on behalf of Hillary in a hoarse voice for the better part of an hour.  The speech was extemporaneous; he used no notes, nor did he need them, and if he seemed to ramble at times, the crowd didn't seem to mind.

Understand that Abilene, Texas is one of the most conservative cities in the entire country.  It is home to three separate church-supported universities (Baptist, Methodist, and Church of Christ), and votes overwhelmingly Republican in most elections.

Molly Ivins once wrote of West Texas, "Gay people stay in the closet because they're afraid people will think they're Democrats."

But many of the (closeted) fans who had come to the event had long loved Bill Clinton, and many of them were Hillary supporters, but to pass the time, the longsuffering camera crew gamely interviewed a nice cross-section of the crowd, and just as many, it seems, had come out of respect for the presidency.

"Don't get much chance to see a real, live president," said one cowboy.  "Thought it'd be worth the trip."

A plump, middle-aged woman said, "I'm a Republican, but he was President of the United States, and I thought my kids ought to see him."  She added, "He gave a nice speech.  It was worth the wait."

KTAB then did a rehash of Clinton's remarks, and the next day, local papers within a 200-mile radius had published front-page stories on the Clinton visit.

And Hillary beat Obama in this area by a resounding margin.  (In my own county, some 100 miles from Abilene, 75% of the Democratic primary vote went for Hillary.)  In fact, she won the state's primary vote-count, but Obama won the caucus. 

(Yeah, we don't take anything for granted here in Texas.  We do caucuses AND primaries, but you can't vote in the caucus unless you also voted in the primary.  Please don't expect me to explain Texas, because if I try, we'll both get hopelessly confused.)

I'm telling you this little story in order to make a larger point:  that Democrats need to stop all the "hand-wringing and bed-wetting," as Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, put it in a New York Times article, "Obama Plans Sharper Tone as Party Frets," by Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12obama.html?ref=politics

I live in solitude in West Texas ranching country, and my children are grown.  My work as an author/blogger gives me the freedom to work from home, and the time to plow through half a dozen major newspapers a day, as well as numerous political blogs.  I spend at least four hours a day doing this.

Reading.  Listening.  Watching all the new ads.

What this does is, it gives me a Big Picture attitude.  By doing so much reading and Internet surfing on a seven-day a week basis, I'm able to follow general trends that I see taking shape in the political narrative overall.

The blogosphere especially, however, tends to grasp at whatever hot-news topic dominates a given day, and spew outrage on that.  This outrage spills over into vitriolic e-mail forwards and other obsessing on the daily minutia of political campaigns.

Mostly, this past week or so, there has been a great deal of horror at John McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, combined with panic that Obama does not, in their view, appear to be fighting back hard enough to vicious McCain/Palin attacks.

Or, to read others--he IS fighting back, but that's NOT HIS JOB.

Or, to read others--he IS fighting back, but it makes him look WEAK.

Or, to read others--If he doesn't fight back, HE LOOKS WEAK!

Or, to read others--WE TOLD YOU TO NOMINATE HILLARY!

About Sarah Palin, viral e-mails and raging blogposts go out several times a day, consumed with the lastest revelation about her and her presumed barbarism.

Such as the fact that she not only encourages aerial hunting of wolves, but promises $150 in taxpayer money for every left front paw produced by hunters as evidence that they killed a wolf.

Animal lovers everywhere are horrified; even some hunters recoil. 

(Out here in the West, where we've seen what a predatory animal can do to a baby lamb or calf, or house cat or pet dog, are not always as sentimental, but even we draw the line at aerial hunting.  A more civilized solution in places like Yosemite, has been to tranquilize and relocate the animals who are encroaching on ranches and suburban areas.  That said--I don't think there's much sheep-ranching or urban sprawl that goes on in Alaska.  To Palin, this is just plain sport.)

So, what happens is, with each twisty new piece of the jigsaw puzzle, panicked Democrats launch into a fear-and-rage fueled tirade about how ugly this picture is going to be when it's all put together--Lady MacBeth wearing Tina Fey glasses, stalking the castle by night, looking for the sleeping Obama. 

Meanwhile, thousands of Internet and op-ed voices pick and pluck over the perceived carcass of the Obama campaign like vultures waiting for roadkill to die already.

But boys and girls...ya gotta pull back, put away the microscope that focuses on each tiny thing, and look at the Big Picture.

One of the complaints I read today, by a liberal op-ed, was that Obama needs to go back to the big rallies that excited his base and cut out all these obscure stops at diners and factories and schools. 

Whoever it was--I've forgotten now--said, "He's let the whole McCain-celebrity-meme get into his head."

It was a waste of time, they said, for him to concentrate on small venues.

Ahhhh, but whoever lodged that complaint did not see Bill Clinton take over media coverage for two straight days in the small-market area of Abilene, Texas...and Tyler, Texas, and San Marcos, Texas...and so many other small stops he made that last week before the primaries, standing alone in the back of a pickup truck, speaking from the heart to a few hundred souls.

The thing is, whenever Obama or Joe Biden speak at a small-town venue, they know that the local media will be all over the event.  You have to understand that most small-town and small-city papers and local TV-news venues (outside of Iowa and New Hampshire) aren't used to big politicians coming to their little bergs and giving them one-on-one interviews.  Most folks in those small towns don't get the opportunity to see famous people in such intimate settings.

It's exciting for them.

It's news.

And when Obama or Biden makes such an appearance, they dominate the coverage and the commentary.  There can be a dozen nasty McCain ads on TV, but they can't compete with this kind of personal communication.

Visit enough 200-mile media markets in enough swing states, grant enough interviews to small-town reporters, take enough questions from people worried about their jobs or their lack of health insurance or their kids in Iraq...and a new jigsaw puzzle begins to slowly be assembled in voters' minds.

This piece from Terre Haute, Indiana, and this piece in Santa Fe, new Mexico, and this piece in Raleigh, North Carolina--they all come together into a pattern, one pickup truck at a time, one vote at a time.

I understand that the McCain campaign is doing much the same; that's what politics is.  But it has been a month since the so-called straight-talker has given any interviews to ANYBODY, and Sarah Palin is being kept tightly-wound in Saran Wrap. 

Without her along, McCain can't even generate a crowd...and when she's alone, she says things like, "Perhaps"--going to war with Russia might happen because they invaded Georgia.

And people begin to lose count of all the wars McCain/Palin want to fight, when we can't even get extricated from the two we're in now.

Obama asks us, repeatedly, How stupid do they think we are?

When the McCain/Palin campaign runs outrageous, bodacious lies in ads, they may provoke panic among Democrats and sneering approval from Republicans, but the folks who sit on hay bales at the local community barn to hear Obama up close and personal are going to know bullshit when they see it.

At the same time, the superlative Obama ground operation has opened dozens of small campaign offices scattered all over various states--five or six for each large city, one each for small cities, way-stations for rural areas.  Volunteers from each office-area are trained, given a list of names and phone numbers and addresses of voters in their own neighborhoods, and they are calling up their neighbors and saying, "My name is Jane Doe, and I live on Main and First.  I'm volunteering for Barack Obama, and I wondered if we can count on your vote?"

Then, one on one, they can answer doubts and questions, and reach out to those same people who saw the local news broadcast of Obama talking to that nice waitress at the truckstop on I-10.

The waitress who, beaming, told the news-camera, "I wasn't sure before, but I'm voting for Obama now.  It means a lot that he came in here."

Simultaneously, a massive voter-registration drive is in effect, nation-wide, that has so far signed up more than two million new voters, the vast majority of whom will vote for Obama.  (Names, by the way, that are not included in those used by polling agencies.)

The Obama campaign has even set up a website, where you can register to vote.  It takes less than five minutes:

https://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php?source=091008emailR

Meanwhile, Obama IS fighting back, in an aggressive ad-buy in those same swing states, that, within hours, not only answers attacks as the untruths they are, but continues to hammer home his theme that Bush/McCain/Palin do NOT represent change, that they lack a true grasp on the problems facing our nation, and that all this flim-flammery coming from them is a con--deliberately designed to distract the American public from the fact that they have NO new ideas as to how to address those problems and would, in fact, simply apply Bush policies all over again.

And as far as the daily avalanche of Palin-stories, again, look at the Big Picture.

Rather than reacting viscerally to each new horrific revelation and fixating on that, keep in mind, as Obama does, that Sarah Palin is not running for president.

However, a man who impulsively selected her as his running mate after a single phone conversation and one hurried meeting months before, with virtually no vetting, has virtually sacrificed his country that he claims to put "first," on the altar of his own naked and blatant political ambition.

He would rather turn over the Oval Office, should something happen to him, to a haplessly unprepared and inexperienced political hack, than lose an election.

We've had a government run by political hacks for eight years, and what has that gotten us?

Katrina.

Iraq.

Sex, drugs, and rock n' roll between the Interior Dept. and the oil industry.

A Justice Dept. run by lawyers hired because they think Dubya is sexy rather than because they are qualified.

How, exactly, in a government like this, does Sarah Palin represent CHANGE?

Look at the Big Picture.

Don't fixate on the wolf's left paw.  Sickening and disgusting though that is...it is irrelevant to the Big Picture.  It is only one single piece of the jigsaw.

(And of course I'm not referring only to the wolf-hunting; I'm also talking about the whole daily soap opera coming from Alaska these days.)

Don't panic every time we pull a new puzzle piece out of the box.  Don't freak out over every little daily poll or every attack ad or every news cycle.  

Trust that, although we're putting the puzzle together blind--our candidate and his superb team have seen the whole picture. 

He has seen it--not just one barn and one factory at a time--but the whole country, the whole strategy.  He and his team know what they are doing.  Give them some credit for getting this far.

(And if you're STILL worried...Don't forget.  Yesterday Obama had lunch with Obi-Wan--er--I mean, Bill Clinton.  They discussed the campaign at length, and Bill promised to help.)

The Bush/McCain/Palin campaign is doing everything it can to hide its own record and steal Obama's as their own. 

Give it time. 

The debates are coming up.  The debates will present, not just single puzzle-pieces, but whole chunks of the puzzle.  It will be very hard, in those settings, for the flim-flam man and his Vanna White to hold on to the pretense that they are anything other than what they are: a shiny new box with a pretty new picture...but once you put all the pieces together, it's the same old puzzle.

The Palin interview speaks for itself.  This blog is about the "other woman" currently 3rd in line for the Presidency and a serious critique of her fitness to be POTUS.  That would be Nancy Pelosi.

When Dick Gephardt fell after the 02 election Democrats searched for a new leader in the House.  It came down to 2 choices.  The young, energetic, articulate, and yes, future Presidential material Harold Ford Jr, and Nancy Pelosi -- a housewife who had parlayed her husbands immense wealth and connections into a San Fran district seat.  House Dems voted for Pelosi.  Although Mr. Ford generated a lot of enthusiasm for leadership bid, it seems he could not overcome the ability of Pelosi and Co to raise campaign money for Democratic lawmakers.  Ms. Pelosi took power and her supporters took the committe chairs. 

Since taking over as leader Pelosi did accomplish a Democratic majority, so we can put that in the win column.  However, looking over her record since taking over the Speakership, accomplishments are few and glaring failures are, well, glaring.  Lets lay out a few of them for review:

Failure to hold Bush/Cheney accountable for Iraq
Failure to put together a coherent energy policy, despite a pledge to do so
Failure to produce "the most ethical Congress in history".  Uh huh, everybody believes that one.
A Congressional approval rating lower than W's -- which is the worst in the history of the US Congress

After reviewing this list, one can only come to the conclusion the Democrats own female leader in line for the White House is woefully unfit for duty.  Not only that, she has proven beyond doubt she is unfit for the job as Speaker Of The House.  I will say again, as I have said before, if Democrats leave Pelosi and Reed in charge of the House and Senate and fail to hold them accountable for failure, the GOP will take back one or more chambers within the next 2 elections.  One of the reasons the GOP lost the house was their failure to oust Hastert/Delay in time to avert disaster.  Have we learned anything from watching them?

Not only did the denial of leadership to Mr. Ford rob the party of his considerable appeal and impressive, dynamic persona, it robbed them of a very strong future Presidential candidate who would have been given a national platform to lead his party in the House, establish a track record of success and ultimately springboard to the White House as a formidable national candidate with none of Obama's leadership resume baggage.

It's time to listen to our own rhetoric here and admit the painful truth -- that our own leaders are incompetent and unworthy of the power they hold.   We fail to do so at our own peril.