McCain camp trying to scapegoat Palin

John McCain's campaign is looking for a scapegoat. It is looking for someone to blame if McCain loses on Tuesday.

And it has decided on Sarah Palin.

In recent days, a McCain “adviser” told Dana Bash of CNN: “She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.”

Imagine not taking advice from the geniuses at the McCain campaign. What could Palin be thinking?

Also, a “top McCain adviser” told Mike Allen of Politico that Palin is “a whack job.”

Maybe she is. But who chose to put this “whack job” on the ticket? Wasn’t it John McCain? And wasn’t it his first presidential-level decision?

And if you are a 72-year-old presidential candidate, wouldn’t you expect that your running mate’s fitness for high office would come under a little extra scrutiny? And, therefore, wouldn’t you make your selection with care? (To say nothing about caring about the future of the nation?)

McCain didn’t seem to care that much. McCain admitted recently on national TV that he “didn’t know her well at all” before he chose Palin.

But why not? Why didn’t he get to know her better before he made his choice?

It’s not like he was rushed. McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination in early March. He didn’t announce his choice for a running mate until late August.

Wasn’t that enough time for McCain to get to know Palin? Wasn’t that enough time for his crackerjack “vetters” to investigate Palin’s strengths and weaknesses, check through records and published accounts, talk to a few people, and learn that she was not only a diva but a whack job diva?

But McCain picked her anyway. He wanted to close the “enthusiasm gap” between himself and Barack Obama. He wanted to inject a little adrenaline into the Republican National Convention. He wanted to goose up the Republican base.

And so he chose Palin. Is she really a diva and a whack job? Could be. There are quite a few in politics. (And a few in journalism, too, though in journalism they are called “columnists.”)

As proof that she is, McCain aides now say Palin is “going rogue” and straying from their script. Wow. What a condemnation. McCain sticks to the script. How well is he doing?

In truth, Palin’s real problem is not her personality or whether she takes orders well. Her real problem is that neither she nor McCain can make a credible case that Palin is ready to assume the presidency should she need to.

And that undercuts McCain’s entire campaign.

This was the deal McCain made with the devil. In exchange for energizing his base by picking Palin, he surrendered his chief selling point: that he was better prepared to run the nation in time of crisis, whether it be economic, an attack by terrorists or, as he has been talking about in recent days, fending off a nuclear war.

“The next president won’t have time to get used to the office,” McCain told a crowd in Miami on Wednesday. “I’ve been tested, my friends, I’ve been tested.”

But has Sarah Palin?

I don’t believe running mates win or lose elections, though some believe they can be a drag on the ticket. Lee Atwater, who was George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager in 1988, told me that Dan Quayle cost the ticket 2 to 3 percentage points. But Bush won the election by 7.8 percentage points.

So, in Atwater’s opinion, Bush survived his bad choice by winning the election on his own.

McCain could do the same thing. But his campaign’s bad decisions have not stopped with Sarah Palin. It has made a series of questionable calls, including making Joe the Plumber the embodiment of the campaign.

Are voters really expected to warmly embrace an (unlicensed) plumber who owes back taxes and complains about the possibility of making a quarter million dollars a year?

And did McCain’s aides really believe so little in John McCain’s own likability that they thought Joe the Plumber would be more likable?

Apparently so. Which is sad.

We in the press make too much of running mates and staff and talking points and all the rest of the hubbub that accompanies a campaign.

In the end, it comes down to two candidates slugging it out.

Either McCain pulls off a victory in the last round or he doesn’t.

And if he doesn’t, he has nobody to blame but himself.

Roger Simon Roger Simon Thu Oct 30, 5:43 am ET

McCain-Palin ad distorts Obama's remark on Afghanistan and support for troop-funding bills

A McCain-Palin ad calls Obama "dishonorable," while distorting his words and votes on troop funding.

• It accuses him of saying "our troops in Afghanistan" are just bombing villages and killing civilians. What Obama said, in context, was a criticism of U.S. military strategy, and not of American troops.
  
  
• It accuses Obama and "Congressional liberals" of voting repeatedly to cut off funding for troops, "increasing the risk on their lives." In fact, the votes were for bringing the troops home, cutting off funding only if the president failed to comply.
  

The McCain-Palin campaign released the ad, titled "Dangerous," and said it would be televised nationally. It recycles a misleading, 14-month-old charge that Sen. Barack Obama disrespected U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan by accusing them of "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." It also misrepresents votes in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq as being votes "increasing the risk on their lives."

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad:

"Dangerous"

Narrator: Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are...

Obama: ...just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.

Narrator: How dishonorable.

Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops. Increasing the risk on their lives.

How dangerous.

Obama and congressional liberals. Too risky for America.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

Dishonorable?

The ad asks, "Who is Barack Obama," then calls him "dishonorable" for supposedly saying that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

Gov. Sarah Palin raised a similar charge during the October 2 vice presidential debate. The intervening weekend hasn't made the claim any more substantive. What Obama said – more than a year ago at an August 2007 campaign stop – was a criticism of administration military strategy and not a criticism of "our troops":

Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

At the time, then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacked Obama for the remark. But Obama was on solid ground. As The Associated Press concluded: "As of Aug. 1 [2007], the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party." Even President Bush admitted that there were too many civilian casualties, saying: "The president [Afghan president Hamid Karzai] rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty. And I assured him that we share those concerns."

But 2008 has seen little improvement. According to the New York Times, of the 1,445 civilians killed in Afghanistan so far this year, "slightly more than half" are attributed to insurgents. On September 17, Defense Secretary Robert Gates apologized for civilian casualties, explaining that "while no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder." That same day, Gen. David D. McKiernan, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, told reporters that increased reliance upon air power was to blame for the rise in civilian casualties.

Risky?

The McCain ad goes on say that "congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding for our active troops." It concludes: "Obama and congressional liberals: Too risky for America."

The McCain-Palin campaign sent reporters a set of "ad facts" to back up its claims. Those "facts" list five different votes that supposedly "cut off funding for the troops in combat." Actually, they all were votes in favor of bringing the troops home and ending combat.

The votes in question (S. Amdt. 3875, S.Amdt. 3164, S.Amdt. 2924, S.Amdt. 1098 and H.R. 2237) all set a deadline for completing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The legislation also stipulated that funding for the Iraq war would end after a specified period for withdrawal (with exceptions made for "targeted operations" aimed at al Qaeda, security for Americans remaining in Iraq, training of Iraqi Security Forces, and, in all but one version, "training, equipment, or other material to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security").

The ad claims that these votes would have been "increasing the risk on their lives," but in fact they were actually votes for winding down the Iraq war. Funding for active duty combat troops in Iraq would have been cut off only if the president failed to comply. It's also worth noting that Obama wasn't present for two of these votes, and one was a House vote.

The McCain campaign's "ad facts" also point to a single troop-funding bill that Obama voted against in 2007. As we've written before, Obama first voted for a version of the bill that included a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush vetoed the bill. Obama then voted against a version that did not contain withdrawal language. And for the record, McCain himself voted against the troop-funding bill when it contained withdrawal language.

–by Joe Miller, Factcheck.org

Who You Callin’ a Maverick?

as read in The Nation
By JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: October 4, 2008

There’s that word again: maverick. In Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the Republican candidate, used it to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, no fewer than six times, at one point calling him “the consummate maverick.”

But to those who know the history of the word, applying it to Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch — and to one Texas family in particular it is even a bit offensive.
“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.” The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand.

Sam Maverick’s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term “gobbledygook” in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats.

This Maverick’s son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.

Terrellita Maverick, sister of Maury Jr., is a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

Considering the family’s long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.”

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ” “He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”

McCain & the making of a financial crisis.

............................................................
The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. Nothing illustrates the danger of his approach more clearly than his central role in the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and early '90s.

John McCain was accused of improperly aiding his political patron, Charles Keating, chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee launched investigations and formally reprimanded Senator McCain for his role in the scandal -- the first such Senator to receive a major party nomination for president.
At the heart of the scandal was Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which took advantage of deregulation in the 1980s to make risky investments with its depositors' money. McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating with federal regulators tasked with preventing banking fraud, and championed legislation to delay regulation of the savings and loan industry -- actions that allowed Keating to continue his fraud at an incredible cost to taxpayers.
When the savings and loan industry collapsed, Keating's failed company put taxpayers on the hook for $3.4 billion and more than 20,000 Americans lost their savings. John McCain was reprimanded by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, but the ultimate cost of the crisis to American taxpayers reached more than $120 billion.

The Keating scandal is eerily similar to today's credit crisis, where a lack of regulation and cozy relationships between the financial industry and Congress has allowed banks to make risky loans and profit by bending the rules. And in both cases, John McCain's judgment and values have placed him on the wrong side of history.

McCain straight talk

............................................................

WAAAH...Pelosi was mean to us, WAAAH!

............................................................

OK, How is this woman still on the ticket?

............................................................  

ACTUAL COURIC INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

COURIC:  Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"

PALIN:  (Try to imagine deer in headlights look) That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. 

Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. 

Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. 

All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."

McCainings!

..........

Forget Bourne! This is The Matt Damon Supremacy

OK, Matt Damon, you are the frickin' shiznit!

............................................................ 

FOX News? NEWS!? Really?

......................................................................................

Hmm... let me get back to you on that one.

............................................................
Hey Katie, I'll tell you what. Since I am blowing this interview, why don't I just get back to you and pray that our Holy Father sends you and all of the liberal media to HELL!

ACTUAL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

OMG, are you effin' kidding me?!

Hey! I ate a California Burrito at Santanas! Does that make me a Mexican-American Foreign Relations expert? I dated a Canadian chick in high school. Can I become part of the Foreign Relations Committee? Hey Sarah, I speak Spanish, I HAVE been to Mexico, and I have even bought something in Mexico! I guess I could be on a Commision on Foreign Trade.ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW

Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Great way to finish up a comment. "And there..."

"It's funny that a comment like that...uh.." what? "Caric...uh... I don't know? Reporters." DUH,caricaturized? Mocked? "I DON'T KNOW?" What do you frickin' know? "Reporters are the Devil's minions! Unless they are FOX news reporters, then they are angels from Heaven!"

Gloria Steinem on Palin

By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.


Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women's Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.

MICHAEL MOORE'S NEW FILM TO BE OFFERED FREE ON INTERNET "AS A GIFT TO FANS"

(Sept. 4 , 2008) -- After 20 years of making groundbreaking films and setting box office records -- from "Roger & Me" to "Bowling for Columbine" to "Sicko" – Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore has decided to thank his many fans by giving them a download of his newest film , "Slacker Uprising , " for free. This will be the first major feature-length film by a noted director to debut for free via the internet.

"Slacker Uprising" traces Michael Moore’s 62-city tour of the swing states during the 2004 Presidential election and records the thrilling -- and frightening -- response he received across the country.

Moore, who has made three of the five top-grossing documentaries of all time (including “Fahrenheit 9/11”), said he is doing this giveaway for personal reasons.

Neither Moore nor Brave New Films will make any money from the film, which had a budget of over $2 million. "This is being done entirely as a gift to my fans," said Moore. "The only return any of us are hoping for is the largest turnout of young voters ever at the polls in November. I think 'Slacker Uprising' will inspire million to get off the couch and give voting a chance."

“Our mission here at Brave New Films is to get out a message of social justice,” said Greenwald. “This year , that means getting people to take a close look at what’s at stake in this incredibly important election. You can find literally no better storyteller in the world for that purpose than Michael Moore. Michael is a genius and an inspiration to people all over the country. This new movie is a gift to our country in this critical moment, and we’re honored to be distributing it for free over the internet.”

Moore’s goal four years ago was to convince millions of non-voting "slackers” -- mostly between the ages of 18-29 -- to give voting a try. Starting out in Elk Rapids , Michigan , in front of an audience of 400 , the tour caught on like wildfire with up to 16 , 000 slackers each night coming to see Moore and his traveling band of speakers , comedians , and musicians.

To encourage the slackers to show up, they were offered a clean change of underwear, Ramen noodles, and a promise that no event would start before noon and no politician would be allowed to speak. These enticements filled basketball arenas and football stadiums every night on the "Slacker Uprising Tour."

Along with Moore’s appearance, "Slacker Uprising" features live performances or appearances by Eddie Vedder (of Pearl Jam), Roseanne Barr, Joan Baez, Tom Morello (of Rage Against the Machine), R.E.M., Steve Earle, and Viggo Mortensen.

P.J. and The Girl

Johnny's got a new girl [A title do die for. Innocently smug, yet forgivable in its sexism]

By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
World Net Daily

September 2, 2008 Redlined: September 3, 2008

The risk [P.J. hopes to wow you with diction. I've risked more eating Mexican Jalapenos] John McCain took last Friday is comparable to the 72-year-old ex-fighter pilot knocking back two shots and flying his F-16 under the Golden Gate Bridge [I don't know. Drunk snowmobiling sounds riskier.]

McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his co-pilot was the biggest gamble in presidential history. As of now, it is paying off, big-time. [Like little Bristol's baby daddy, McCain's decision not to pull out of his union with Palin resulted in new life where once there wasn't.]

The sensational selection in Dayton, Ohio, stepped all over the big story from Denver [Where was PJ sitting? I was reading/listening/watching and all I remember was the collective thud of the nation's jaw dropping--and I watch Fox News] – Barack Obama's powerful address to 85,000 cheering folks in Mile High Stadium, and 35 million nationally, a speech that vaulted him from a 2-point deficit early in the week to an 8-point margin [just like P.J. to fuss with semantics, it would kill him to use the word 'lead']. Barack had never before reached 49 percent against McCain.

As the Democrats were being rudely stepped on [politely ignored], however, Palin ignited an explosion of enthusiasm among conservatives, evangelicals, traditional Catholics, gun owners and right to lifers not seen in decades.

By passing over his friends Joel Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008. [VP selections are rarely game-changers. If anything, they run the risk of dead weight or scandal. Let's be serious, both of these nods equally pandered and insulted the intelligence and expectation of the American people.]

Liberals howl that Palin has no experience, no qualifications to be president of the United States. But the lady has more executive experience than McCain, Joe Biden and Obama put together. [Liberals are howling now. What a primal regression from the intelligent debate concerning Mrs. Clinton's pantsuits and fake tears.]

None of them has ever started or run a business as Palin did. None of them has run a giant state like Alaska, which is larger than California and Texas put together [It's true! Check a map. Better yet, go visit Alaska. It's like a frosty slice of America]. And though Alaska is not populous, Gov. Palin has as many constituents as Nancy Pelosi or Biden.

She has no foreign policy experience, we are told. And though Alaska's neighbors are Canada and Russia, the point is valid [the point is more than valid, it's essential. But that won't stop P.J. from brushing you up on your geography]. But from the day she takes office, Palin will get daily briefings and sit on the National Security Council with the president and secretaries of state, treasury and defense.

She will be up to speed in her first year. [P.J. said it first. One year of on the job training is all that separates you regular folks from a cushy chair in the Oval Office.]

And her experience as governor of Alaska, dealing with the oil industry and pipeline agreements with Canada, certainly compares favorably with that of Barack Obama, a community organizer who dealt in the mommy issues of food stamps and rent subsidies. [I love it. Praise the woman, then use slight misogyny to belittle the man.]

Where Obama has poodled along with the Daley Machine, Palin routed the Republican establishment, challenging and ousting a sitting GOP governor before defeating a former Democratic governor to become the first female and youngest governor in state history. [This is fair praise. She pressed firmly on the matter of Ted Stevens' unreported gifts -- right up until his indictment... actually, right up until the joint press conference they held to be sure they hadn't tarnished his name completely.]

For his boldness in choosing Palin, McCain deserves enormous credit. He has made an extraordinary gesture to conservatives and the party base, offering his old antagonists a partner's share in his presidency. And his decision is likely to be rewarded with a massive and enthusiastic turnout for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rarely has this writer encountered such an outburst of enthusiasm on the right. [I don't doubt it. Rape and incest babies might finally have their day with this ticket. Very bold.]

In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history as much as Ike did with his choice of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with his choice of George H.W. Bush. For should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among lifers, evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives [the four corners of the universe!] – wholly independent of President McCain.

A traditional conservative on social issues, Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has. Look for the neocons to move with all deliberate speed to take her into their camp by pressing upon her advisers and staff, and steering her into the AEI-Weekly Standard-War Party orbit.

Indeed, if McCain defeats Barack, 2012 could see women on both national tickets, and given McCain's age and the possibility he intends to serve a single term, women at the top of both – Sarah vs. Hillary.

The arrival of Palin on the national scene, with her youth, charisma and vitality, probably also portends a changing of the guard in Washington.With Republicans having zero chance of capturing either House, and but a slim chance of avoiding losses in both, a Vice President Palin, with her reputation as a rebel and reformer, would surely inspire similar revolts in the Republican caucuses. [We could use reform throughout, but that will do for now.]

As Thomas Jefferson said, from time to time, a little rebellion in the political world is as necessary as storms in the physical. [This is true. Jefferson owned slaves, after all. Plus, if anyone knew how to simultaneously father the Constitution while s***ting on it as President he certainly did.]

The Palin nomination could backfire, but it is hard to see how. She has passed her first test, her introduction to the nation, with wit and grace. And the Obama-Biden ticket, having already alienated millions of women with the disrespecting of Hillary, is unlikely to start attacking another woman whose sole offense is that she had just been given the chance to break the glass ceiling at the national level. [DeLay would agree. She does bring home those alienated conservative women voters who had yet to commit to McCain because they were thinking about maybe mixing things up a little this year with a vote for the brother.]

Her nomination, which will bring the Republican right home, also frees up McCain to appeal to moderates and liberals, which has long been his stock in trade. [I have to admit, I'm one of 'em. I find him appealing, but I'm not ready to make him the baby daddy to my Bristol Palin.]

With his selection of Sarah Palin, John McCain has not only shaken up this election, he may have helped shape the future of the United States – and much for the better. [What a gamble!]

- The Redliner (www.theredliner.com)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s9UQzARlWY

WTF do you mean by "Uppity" ?!

OK, what exactly do people mean when they say "elitist" and "uppity"? Lets talk about the elephant in the room: RACE. Some people may not be able to see through veiled racist comments aimed at Barack Obama or pretend to believe that America has finally attained the nirvana of equality- that the United States has finally achieved the ideal of a color blind nation. It makes me recall a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a young white female about racism when she said that "she didn't believe racism existed".  When I asked her what she meant, she stated that she chose "to believe that racism doesn't exist". I was amazed and flabbergasted at her comments. Just because someone chooses to believe that racism doesn't exist doesn't mean it ceases to exist or goes away. In this young lady's defense I believe that she is a reasonably intelligent average American who wishes racism didn't exist, but seriously misspoke and by doing so inserted her foot so far in her mouth that she was crapping shoe for a week! So I have come to the conclusion that there seems to be two types of racism going on in in the current politics of the nation. The blatant bare faced racism that was so prominent in the American south as evidenced by Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" up until the 1960's and then there is ignorance. Lets talk about the first one.

According to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, the definition of Elitism is:

1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite ; especially : snobbery
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

And the definition of Uppity is:
Function:adjective
Etymology: probably from up + -ity (as in persnickity, variant of persnickety)

Date: 1880

putting on or marked by airs of superiority : arrogant , presumptuous

For the moment, let us examine the latter word and its origins. In researching the etymology (word origin) of the word uppity through the Online Etymology Dictionary I came across this information. The words' first recorded usage happened about "1880" and was "originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus")." Uncle Remus was a collection of stories and folk tales about the deep south and told in a slave dialect. For you Disney fans out there, if you have ever ridden Thunder Mountain at Disneyland in Anaheim, it's the collection of stories where Br'er Rabbit came from. So when congressman Lynn Westmoreland (ok, you're a dude and your name is Lynn. Hmmm...) of Georgia uses the term in reference to Obama you know he's trying to stir up some doo-doo. For the record, this is what he said. "Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Senator Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity". When he was asked to clarify if he had used the word uppity, probably out of disbelief that someone could say something so blatantly racist he said “Uppity, yeah.” After he had made such a huge friggin' gaffe, he told the Associated Press that he was unaware that "uppity" was so offensive. Are you serious, dude? OK, lets look at the facts:

1. Born and raised in the segregated south on April 2, 1950.
2. According to the Huffington Post "Westmoreland was one of only two members of Congress (422-2) to vote against a bill named after the slain 14-year-old African-American boy, Emmett Till, which would provide funds to the FBI to investigate killings during the civil rights era."
3. Admitted that he voted against providing relief to Hurricane Katrina victims.
   
4. Advocates eliminating the United States Department of Education.
5. In 2006, he voted against renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which, among other things, guarantees Blacks the right to vote.

You have to see the report with Stephen Colbert on his Colbert Report by clicking on this line.

Maybe I am reading way too much in this whole thing but look, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then its probably some racist cracker spewing good ole boy "Southern Startegy" politics which exploits racism among white voters. When you take into consideration that in "West Virginia's primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote" and that according to Time magazine "even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

To Be Continued...

The Economy: Will work for funds.

The news today was not good for us America. Today the Dow Jones had the sixth largest drop in its history. In first place is the crash of October 19, 1987, followed by The Great Depression in spots 2, 3, and 4. The next biggest drop didn't even occur in the 20th century! To really put this in perspective, it is now the 21st century. The number 5 biggest drop occurred on December 18, 1899. This was also the S&P's worst percentage decline since the day the market opened on September 17th after the tragic events of 9/11.

Even with all of this Republican Presidential nominee John McCain stated today that " the fundamentals of our economy are strong"(Jacksonville, FL). Dude, are you kidding me? I don't know which of your unknown number of houses you are watching the news from but the economy is screwing the pooch right now! Sure, I know that after your little ad lib you back pedaled and then stated that "these are very, very difficult times" and that "we will never put America in this position again". But just how clueless about the economy are you? You cannot state in a speech that the fundamentals of our economy are strong and then in the same speech state that the economy is in "crisis"(Orlando, FL) and that "we've got to fix this economy, which the fundamentals of are at great risk right now". WTF, dude?! You just said they were strong! I'm sorry Mr. McCain but you are out of touch not only with the economy but with the American people.

President Bush stated that "in the short run adjustments in the financial markets can be painful, both for people concerned about their investments, and for the employees of the affected firms". However, "over the long run, I'm confident that our capital markets are flexible and resilient, and can deal with these adjustments". These views are eerily similar to those held by President Herbert Hoover ...during the DEPRESSION! President Bush also stated, "we're working to reduce disruptions and minimize the impact of these financial market developments on the broader economy". 'We're working'? Are you serious? What have you been doing the last 8 years? Taking a break? When did you decide to start working, because it damn sure wasn't um, I don't know, 8 years ago!
So what does this crap economy mean to me? It means that gas prices are higher, so it costs Americans more money to put gas in their fuel tanks so that they can go to work and get laid off (ie. Lehman Brothers, who just a week ago were all assured they still would have jobs). It means that once they get laid off they won't be able to afford the house they live in. It means that they better not be poor and get sick because healthcare is getting cut across the board. States are going to have to face some tough choices. They will to have to disqualify certain groups from coverage, cut benefits, reduce payments to doctors, or charge more in copayments. To mean specifically it means that even though there are more houses available then there are buyers I can't find a house to buy because even though I (middle class American) am more than able to buy a house, I have to compete with other rich dudes who are able to make cash offers on a $500, 000 home that they will then rent to me.
The American Middle Class is no longer slowly fading away, it's disappearing faster then some crack up Amy Winehouse's nose at a Whitney Houston house party! Listen, millionaires want to be taxed the same as people who are not millionaires, and even though it may not seem fair to others, to me thats just plain stupid. If I were to tax you on 20% of 6 million, you still have over $4million. But I am not a millionaire. Hell, I am barely a thousand-aire, and if you tax 20% of my $40, 000, for example, thats $8 grand your taking from me. If I am making $40,000 a year then $8000 is close to 4 months rent in california. I hate to use this cliche, but the Rich keep getting richer and the rest of us are just getting poorer. Tell me what you think.

Triumph at the Republican Convention

Hello, America? SPEAK YOUR MIND!

Welcome to the inaugural posting of the new blog created for you. You and me. Better known as the people who make up "We the People". We are a cross section of average people with above average thoughts and opinions. We hope that this will be a place for all people to gain knowledge, promote progress and speak out about politics, the economy, American culture and more.
We hope that you the reader will benefit from our commentary and on occasion even speak out and tell us what you think! Are you tired of whats going on in our country? Wondering where the hell the economy is going (besides hell in a hand basket)? Do you know what Lindsay Lohan did last night? Well, smack it up, flip it and rub it down, oh NO!
Welcome to your new place to praise, gripe and comment!