Campaigns

BREAKING: SCOTUS Overturns Restrictions On Corporate Campaign Spending (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

Some ominous news from Washington this morning:

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

The court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns and threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

That’s funny–I seem to remember the preamble of the Constitution beginning with “We the People of the United States,” not “We the Corporations of the United States”

I don’t understand the concept of corporate personhood–why should corporations allowed to advertise on behalf of candidates? For that matter, why are they allowed to set up PACs? They’re not allowed to vote, so why should they be able to spend tens of millions of dollars (often on misinformation) to tell the rest of us how to vote?

If the people who work for a corporation feel strongly enough about an issue or candidate, they can certainly spend their own money and campaign on their own time.  But money is a massively corrupting influence in politics; letting corporations dump huge amounts of money into our political system is only going to make things worse.

This is why we need publicly funded elections–to prevent “We the People” from becoming “We the Corporations and Special Interests”

(And I like how they throw labor unions in there, as if labor unions will ever come close to being able to rival the profits of all of corporate America).

UPDATE: I had an idea of how to turn this ruling into a win-win situation:

Whenever a corporation spends money on the behalf of a politician, that politician should have to sew a patch bearing that corporation’s logo onto all of their suits, NASCAR-style.

On the one hand, that would provide corporate donors with free advertising–since their logo appears wherever a candidate goes–ensuring that those donors get their money’s worth.

And it also provides voters with insight into which corporations have bought which politicians–this way, we’ll know why the Governor with the ConAgra patch loves ethanol, why the Congressman with the ExxonMobil patch wants to ‘drill baby drill’ and why the Senator with the Blackwater/Xe patch doesn’t think we should leave Iraq anytime soon.

Blue America

Posted on by Democrashield

Are the Republicans poised to make a political comeback?

No, according to Gallup, whose recent polling found that Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans in 29 states (and DC) while Republicans outnumber Democrats in just 4 states:

[click on pic for full-sized]

Analysis below the fold…

Read More

Blue Dog$

Posted on by Democrashield

There is a lack of honesty in the health care debate. In particular, with the coverage of the Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats who are trying to stymie health care reform.

Most Blue Dogs/conservative Democrats come from competitive districts, meaning that every two years they need enough money to mount strong campaigns.

That’s where the insurance industry and the rest of the health industrial complex step in–they’re more than happy to provide those members with the funds they need.  Of course, such funds have strings attached–explicit or implicit–that cause those members to do such things as block health care reform.

More below…

Read More

Check The Polls (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

After I declared Obama the winner of Friday’s debate, one commenter told me to check the polls come Monday.

Well, happy Monday!

Diageo/Hotline:

Obama-Biden: 47%

McCain-Palin: 42%

Undecided: 8%

McCain now has a net unfavorable rating among Inds. Just 43% have a favorable impression of the GOP nominee, while 46% have an unfavorable impression. One week ago — in the survey completed 9/20 — his fav/unfav among Inds was 51%/36%.

And the AZ Sen.’s trouble with Inds extends to the WH matchup. Obama leads the group, which makes up 19% of today’s Diageo/Hotline sample, by a commanding 52-29% margin. One week ago, McCain held a 40-39% advantage

[Emphasis added]

Research 2000:

Obama-Biden: 51%

McCain-Palin: 42%

Gallup:

Obama-Biden: 50%

McCain-Palin: 42%

Rasmussen:

Obama-Biden: 50%

McCain-Palin: 45%

FiveThirtyEight:

Obama-Biden: 325.5 EV

McCain-Palin: 212.5 EV

There is a 64.35% chance Obama will win all the Kerry states.

There is a 65.88% chance Obama will win VA but lose OH

There is a 71.68% chance Obama will win CO but lose OH

There is a 54.48% chance Obama will lose OH but still win the election

There is a 25.54% chance of an Obama landslide (375+ EV)

Electoral-Vote.com:

Obama-Biden: 286 EV

McCain-Palin: 252

Obama wins all the Kerry states plus CO, IA, NM and VA.

Pollster:

Obama-Biden: 229 EV

McCain-Palin: 174 EV

Toss Up: 135 EV

Of the toss up states, Obama is currently winning PA, MN & CO; NH is tied. If you add up the states Obama is currently winning, he has 269 electoral votes.

UPDATE: Let’s not forget LA Times/Bloomberg:

The Illinois senator extended his advantage to 49% to 44%, compared with last week, when the same respondents gave him a 48% to 45% edge.

[…]

Obama was seen as more “presidential” by 46% of debate-watchers, compared with 33% for the Arizona senator.

The difference is even more pronounced among debate-watchers who were not firmly committed to a candidate: 44% said they believed Obama looked more presidential, whereas 16% gave McCain the advantage.

The Republican candidate also has lost ground on several measures of voter confidence, including trust.

[Emphasis added]

Stunt!

Posted on by Democrashield

Knievel Fail Motorcycle Jump

A brief history of the McCain campaign

Looks like Senator Stuntman is out in the garage, strapping rockets to his motorcycle and preparing for his next PR epic fail:

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

[Emphasis mine]

Yes, because it’s a great idea to wrestle the media away from covering the economy–the most important issue of this election–and force them to give wall-to-wall coverage to your Vice Presidential candidate’s daughter’s wedding.  Especially right after you campaign just faceplanted by interfering with–and messing up–political negotiations to help end our economc crisis.

When are you guys going to learn that the American people aren’t going to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore? You’ve staged so many stunts and tried to pull off so much nonsense in this campaign that nobody’s going to even pretend that Bristol Palin’s (conveniently) pre-election wedding is anything but a desperate ploy for positive media coverage.

You just don’t get it–there are major issues out there; the American people are waiting for you to start showing some leadership. This isn’t 2000, or even 2004–trying to derail the Presidential campaign with trivial garbage isn’t going to cut it anymore.  In fact, it’s just going to make people angry that you’re wasting their time instead of dealing with the economy or fixing our foreign policy or ending our war in Iraq.

If this happens, expect a major backlash.  We just went through eight years of a stunt-driven Presidency (anyone remember ‘Mission Accomplished’?) and the last thing America needs is another impulsive President who cares more about his political image than about rising to meet our nation’s challenges.

Obama Wins (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

Hands down, no question, Obama won the first Presidential debate.

McCain came off as combative and angry–Obama knew the issues, he was in control of the exchange and he showed the kind of calm and stability we need in a President.

McCain is going to have a hard time catching up after this…

UPDATE: And the preliminary polls are in:

40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won.

UPDATE II: Josh Marshall sleeps on it:

I think it was a much bigger win for Obama than I was ready to figure last night. And that’s for two basic reasons.

First, the pattern in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates was essentially this: the Democrat generally won each debate on points and even in the snap polls of undecided voters. But there was usually some remark or bit of affect that — ludicrous or not — right-wing commentators and yakkers fixed in on and were able to parlay into the dominating conversation of the next few days. In this way, strong debate performances turned into weak debate performances.

I’m not seeing anything like that this time. Mainly that’s because Obama just didn’t make any mistakes. But I suspect it’s also because there’s now more meta-media parity between right and left.

Second was McCain’s attitude. Whether it was contempt or condescension or some sort of fear or inability to — in the most literal sense — face Obama, it made McCain look small and angry.

Surprise! (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

FAIL

Senator Stuntman’s latest trick has fallen apart–CNN is reporting that John McCain will, in fact, debate Barack Obama in Oxford tonight.

Remember, McCain said he wouldn’t debate until this crisis was resolved. The House GOP killed yesterday’s agreement right after McCain showed up, and it doesn’t look like today will bring a resolution, either.

So even though the crisis isn’t resolved, John McCain will go back on his word and attend tonight’s debate. It makes me wonder, can we really trust someone so impulsive and unbalanced in the White House? I don’t think so.

Obama/Biden ’08–for the stability and leadership we need.

UPDATE: Not only is McCain attending the debate–apparently he’s already won it, according to web ads his campaign is running:

So, John McCain injects himself into the middle of sensitive Congressional negotiations (after having nothing to do with Congress since April), leaves before anything is resolved, then declares himself the winner of a debate that hasn’t even happened yet.

Irrational and presumptuous. Is that really the kind of guy we want running the show?

Suspended…? (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

So, yesterday John McCain ‘suspended’ his campaign.

But his campaign commercials are still on the air. And his surrogates are still going on television and spouting their talking points. And I can still go to his website and donate money to him. And this ad is still up and running on right-wing websites:

And now John McCain is on my television, giving a political speech to the Clinton Global Initiative. But the CGI is meeting in New York, so even though McCain said he was suspending his campaign to go to Washington and work on the bailout, instead he went all the way to New York to give a speech.

In fact, it looks like McCain’s campaign is doing all of the things they were doing yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. So it raises the question, what exactly did John McCain mean when he said his campaign was ‘suspended’?

UPDATE: Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports:

What exactly constitutes a “suspended campaign?”

Well, Team McCain is still working away this morning. Joe Pounder, the indefatigable press aide, blasted out his morning email of clips and quips to reporters

And The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports:

The most popular half of the McCain-Palin ticket plans a Thursday afternoon rally near the Philadelphia International Airport, according to a Philadelphia TV station.

The McCain campaign says that the rally won’t happen.

So McCain’s press shop is still up and running, and now there’s a debate over whether or not Sarah Palin will be holding a rally in Pennsylvania today. How is this a suspension, again?

UPDATE II: More non-suspension news: Mitt Romney is campaigning for McCain in Michigan while McCain economic adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer is participating in a live online chat on the Washington Times website at 11.

If McCain shows up in Oxford tomorrow, one of the moderators should ask him what the definition of the word ‘suspended’ is.

UPDATE III: Today, Sarah Palin went to Ground Zero and took questions from reporters about terrorism and foreign policy. How is that not campaigning?

And Raising Kaine found out that John McCain’s mid-Atlantic regional headquarters is not only up and running, but looking for volunteers.

It looks like Senator Stuntman is trying to pull one over on the national press corps. His campaign isn’t suspended–this is just a PR gambit to make himself look better in front of the cameras.

UPDATE IV: And now John McCain has a round of television interviews scheduled for tonight.

I wonder if his campaign is officially going to declare his ‘I will suspend my campaign’ stunt dead or if they’re just going to pretend it never happened and hope everyone forgets.

UPDATE V: Hey, does this coffin have enough nails in it yet?

The Huffington Post called up 15 McCain-Palin and McCain Victory Committee headquarters in various battleground states. Not one said that it was temporarily halting operations because of the supposed “suspension” in the campaign. Several, in fact, enthusiastically declared the continuation of their work. Others hadn’t even heard that the candidate for whom they were devoting their time had officially stopped campaigning.

[Emphasis added]

(More) Stupid Republican Tricks (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

John McCain is saying he is postponing his campaign in order to go to Washington and work on the bailout. McCain has said that he wants Sen. Obama to do the same.

This is a political stunt. And I pray the Obama campaign will call McCain out on it.

John McCain has been in Congress for 26 years. For 26 years, he pushed the exact same deregulatory policies that led to this crisis. McCain had 26 years to take action to prevent this economic collapse from happening. But he didn’t. Now, suddenly he’s running for President, the economy is a major issue and now McCain is putting everything on hold to work on the economy. Are you kidding? We need a President who will prevent problems fro happening, not one who waits until a crisis develops and then does something.

Second, John McCain has been the most absent Senator of the 110th Congress. He’s been so busy campaigning for President he didn’t even bother to show up for two-thirds of all Senate votes. But after two years of abandoning his duties in Congress, all of a sudden he’s rushing back to deal with it. I mean, it’s nice that he’s actually doing the job he was elected to do, but it’s sad that it took a national crisis—a politically-expedient crisis, I might add—to bring him back to Washington.

Third, we’ve had some major crises develop during this campaign. Hell, Russia and Georgia fought a war during this campaign, but that didn’t get John McCain off the campaign trail. Funny how his polling numbers start to tank and a major political issue develops and suddenly that’s enough to get him off the Doubletalk Express and back doing his job.

Stemming from that, well, Ben Smith puts it best:

But in terms of the timing of this move: The only thing that’s changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling.

Face it, this crisis hasn’t gotten dramatically worse in the past two days. The only thing that has gotten worse is John McCain’s polling numbers. This is a blatant stunt on McCain’s part to regain momentum in this Presidential election. When he had the chance to show leadership, he didn’t. When other major issues developed it wasn’t enough to pull him off the trail. But suddenly he’s tanking and this issue comes up, and he’s flying back to Washington to do the job he’s spent the past two years ignoring.

Pathetic. And I hope the Obama campaign and the media call this out for what it is.

UPDATE: Some interesting details on this have just come to light.

Apparently, at 8:30 this morning Senator Obama called Senator McCain about working in a bipartisan fashion to address the economic crisis. Later in the day, at about 2:30, McCain called back and agreed to work with Sen. Obama to come up with a bipartisan solution.

And shortly after that, McCain made the announcement he’ll be suspending his campaign and is urging Obama to do the same.

The question is, who made the first move? Who took the first step towards bipartisanship? It looks like Obama reached out to McCain, convinced him to work together for the good of the American people, then McCain turned around and stabbed Obama in the back by making his announcement, thus giving the appearance that McCain was the one who initiated the bipartisan conversation.

McCain just made a coldly political move. Will it backfire on him? Well, if Obama can prove that he made the first move and McCain stabbed him in the back to make himself look better for the cameras, I bet it will.

UPDATE II: Okay, so John Cain says our economic crisis is so bad he not only needs to suspend his Presidential campaign, but he wants Obama to agree to put off the first Presidential debate.

But just yesterday, John McCain was attacking Barack Obama for not agreeing to do more debates with him:

“I have town hall meetings across America. I am in touch with the American people. I have asked Sen. Obama to join me. He refuses.”

[Emphasis added]

So yesterday this wasn’t bad enough to warrant putting off the debates–in fact, just yesterday McCain was calling for more debates with Obama.

What changed between yesterday and today? Nothing on Wall Street or Capitol Hill–but plenty changed in the polls.

Let’s face fact, McCain is tanking. McCain is desperate. And thus a political stunt is born, and I’m calling him out on it

UPDATE III: Obama responds, saying he thinks now–more than ever–it’s important the American people hear the ideas and proposals of the two men running for President. He links foreign policy–the topic of Friday’s debate–to the economy, rightly pointing out that our economic security directly affects our national security.

He rips John McCain for first pledging to work together in a bipartisan fashion then turning around and stabbing Obama in the back in order to score political points.

Most importantly, Obama says that a President should be able to do several things at once.  Let’s face it, the President of the United States can’t suspend his duties to focus on just one thing. If McCain can’t multitask, McCain can’t be President. Period.

UPDATE IV: SurveyUSA has released a preliminary poll and the numbers don’t look good at all for McCain.

86% of Americans believe Friday’s debate still should be held–50% say it should be held as scheduled and 36% say it should be held and refocused on the economy. Only 10% agree with McCain that the debate should be postponed.

79% of Americans believe the candidates should continue campaigning–31% they should continue as is and 48% believe they should continue but refocus on the economy. Just 14% agree with McCain that he and Obama should suspend their campaigning.

46% believe that postponing the debate would be bad for America; only 14% think postponing Friday’s debate would be good for America.

Ouch.

FINAL UPDATE: My last thoughts on today–

Either one of two things happened to lead us to this point.  Either John McCain made a purely political calculation or he just realized that the economic problems facing America are significant.

Neither option is good for McCain.  If the first is true, then McCain is playing politics with America’s biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.  If the second is true, then McCain is so out of touch it took several days for him to realize he should be doing something about it.  In either case that’s not the type of behavior I want from my President.

It would have been smart for McCain to have done this days ago, when the crisis first developed–he would have shown he was on top of things and he could have gotten involved in the negotiations from the start.  Now, though, what’s he going to do? These are sensitive negotiations–they involve Democrats, Republicans, the White House, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street…he can’t just drop himself in the middle and start messing with everything.  In the end, he might drop everything, go to Washington and find himself unable to do anything but vote on the final bill.

Worst of all, today the American people didn’t see a President McCain.  What we saw was someone in a panic–someone who realized the political winds were not blowing his way and latched onto the first ‘so crazy it might just work’ idea thrown to him.

On the other hand, we did see a President Obama today.  He was calm, he was confident–he showed us that he understands how serious this crisis is, yes, but that he can deal with that as well as the other issues concerning the American people. Obama did exactly what a President does in a situation like this–he gets in contact with all the important players, getting their opinions and sharing his ideas, but in the end he lets them do their jobs.  Obama showed he understands that this is not a time for politics and that the best thing he could do for America is to keep Presidential politics far away from the negotiation process.

This is a stunt, and the American people know it.  And unfortunately for McCain, all it did was reveal why he’s not fit to be President.  America’s Commander-in-Chief can’t panic and drop everything when a major crisis develops–he has to be calm and confident, and he has to be able to both manage the crisis and every other issue demanding his attention.  Today, I learned that Obama fits that description and John McCain doesn’t.

Fair ‘N Balanced

Posted on by Democrashield

Take note, Steve Schmidt

Yesterday, top McCain adviser Steve Schmidt whined that the New York Times is a ‘pro-Obama advocacy organization.’ He went on to sniff that the Times ‘attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin and excuses Sen. Obama.’

At the end of his tirade, Schmidt pleaded for more balance, saying he hoped the campaign would regain symmetry in the days to come.

Of course, this is nothing new—Republicans want the media to be balanced. Well, actually, Republicans want the media to function as a propaganda arm of the RNC. But, since every outlet can’t be Fox News, they demand balance, they demand that we all be told both sides of every issue.

But what does balance mean? Well, even though Fox equates the two, ‘balance’ isn’t the same as ‘fairness.’ In fact, it’s almost the exact opposite—balance in the media is often distinctly unfair.

Balance is when the media treats both sides of every issue equally, regardless of the merit of either side’s position. So, Candidate A says the world is round and Candidate B says the world is flat. A balanced media would simply report that one side believes the world is round and the other side believes the world is flat. Cable news programs would feature representatives from both sides arguing the issue, while a host sat in the background letting the two sides duke it out.

Though that media is balanced, it’s not necessarily fair. The unfairness comes from the fact that ideas which are wrong or nonsensical are treated exactly the same as ideas that are true. Little, if any, effort is put towards trying to determine which side is telling the truth. A balanced media isn’t composed of journalists—it’s composed of stenographers.

Similarly, a fair media would let both sides make their point and give them equal time to do so. So Candidate A would be allowed to talk about how the world is round and Candidate B would be allowed to discuss his belief that the world is flat. But, unlike a balanced media, a fair media would go a step further and determine which viewpoint was accurate. For example, instead of simply repeating ‘some believe the Earth is flat and some believe the Earth is round,’ they would investigate and report that that the Earth is indeed round and, thus, Candidate A is right and Candidate B is wrong. Thus, the media would be fairer because it would address ideas on their merits instead of treating every single idea exactly the same.

The McCain campaign is angry because the media is moving away from balance and toward fairness. The media is becoming more reluctant to simply repeat what the campaigns tell them and more willing to challenge lies.

See, the McCain campaign was hoping they could win this campaign by lying through their teeth and having the media simply repeat what they said, as well as the Democratic response to their lies, making disputes over facts into he-said-she-said arguments. That’s the most frustrating element of a balanced media—there’s an objective reality out there, yet they end up treating disputes over facts exactly the same as differences of opinion, as if neither side could be proven right or wrong.

But the McCain campaign went too far. They basically told the media that yes, they were going to lie through their teeth and that the media had better report those lies.They showed a shocking disregard for the truth and assumed that the media would play their part and not challenge them.

And I think that pissed the media off, who balked at being told to report blatant lies over and over again.

I mean, the Obama campaign has stretched the truth too, but nowhere near as much as—or as frequently as—the McCain campaign. And now I think the press is more willing to scrutinize what the McCain campaign says and call them out on their dishonesty because they’re sick of being used by the McCain camp to spread misinformation.

Of course, that means that Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis & co. are going to spend the next few weeks shooting the messenger, so expect more whining in the near future. But that’s what you get for building your campaign with lies—eventually, everyone gets sick of being lied to; nobody wants to listen to you anymore. And when John McCain loses on November 4th, expect the chorus of whining to reach it’s crescendo as the GOP blames the “liberal media”–once again–for a failure completely of their own making.


No Blank Check

Posted on by Democrashield

Right now, the Bush administration is demanding a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. That comes out to roughly $2,325 for every man, woman and child in America. And now they’re saying they want that money to be no-strings-attached–they’re telling us that this is ‘no time to be punitive.’

Forgive my language, but they can go to hell.

Someone has to pay for this. Well, figuratively—literally, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. But if the Republicans want my tax money to go to Wall Street, there better be some strings attached.

First, how about ending those golden parachutes? If you’re the head of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or AIG or any of those companies getting bailed out, you messed up. You made poor business decisions and you drove your company into the ground. You don’t deserve millions of dollars for doing a terrible job—especially not if the taxpayers are footing the bill. Do not pass go, do not get a giant severance package—though I’d suggest you take some of the money you’ve already earned and go back to business school.

Second, we need more regulation. Let’s put that “let the free market regulate itself” garbage to bed once and for all. This crisis comes at the tail end of 28 years of Republican-championed deregulation; our failing economy proves that sometimes business needs to be regulated, for the good of all of us.  So how about we rebuild some of that regulatory structure. If a huge chunk of my tax dollars are going to fix this mess, I want to make sure there are guidelines in place to make sure it never, ever happens again.

Third, how about doing something for Main Street? How ridiculous is it that you want us to throw nearly a trillion dollars at Wall Street, but the rest of us have to both foot the bill and fend for ourselves? Guess what, guys—that money you’re sending to those skyscrapers in lower Manhattan is going there instead of paying for health care or social security or a few other programs that would have benefited those of us who don’t have MBAs or fancy job titles.

And how about we make those big corporations and CEOs pay more in taxes—they made this mess, they should pay for as much of it as they can afford. In fact, let’s start with McCain adviser Carly Fiorina—you know, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard who got a $40 million golden parachute after driving the company into the ground and laying off thousands of workers. I’m sure she could afford to pay for a pretty big share of this mess.

Obama and the Dems seem to be willing to show some spine on this, so let’s go for it. If the Republicans are demanding our money to fix their mess, they better offer us something good in return.  Otherwise, we should let them sweat it out a bit while Wall Street crumbles, bit by bit.

No blank check. No way.

Epic Falin (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

Yup, Sarah Palin is still an epic fail:

Turns out that when a major national crisis develops, the American people actually want competent people in charge.

It’ll take more than hockey moms and mooseburgers to fix this economic collapse.

UPDATE: And then there’s this:

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Palin, there has been quite a bit of discussion about your perceived lack of foreign policy experience. And I want to give you your chance. If you could please respond to that criticism and give us specific skills that you think you have to bring to the White House to rebut that or mitigate that concern.

PALIN: Well, I think because I’m a Washington outsider that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize and they can kind of try to beat the candidates here, who chose me as his partner, to kind of tear down the ticket. But as for foreign policy, you know, I think that I am prepared and I know that on January 20th, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we’ll be ready. I’ll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness.

[Emphasis added]

Someone seems to have a problem understanding the word ‘specific.’

McCain & Spain

Posted on by Democrashield

Transcript from Raw Story, emphasis mine:

INTERVIEWER: Senator finally, let’s talk about Spain. If elected president would you be willing to invite President Jose Rodriguez Louis Zapatero to the White House, to meet with you?

McCAIN: I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion.

And by the way President Calderone of Mexico is fighting a very, very tough fight against the drug cartels. I’m glad we are now working with the Mexican government on the Merida Plan, [Note: the Merida Plan involves Mexico and Central America; Spain is not involved in the least] and I intend to move forward with relations and invite as many of them as I can, of those leaders to the White House.

INTERVIEWER: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government? To the president himself?

McCAIN: Uh, I don’t, I, ya know, I, honestly, I have to look at the situations and the relations and the priorities. But I can assure you, I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

INTERVIEWER: So you have to wait and see. If he’s willing to meet with you, would you be able to do it? In the White House?

McCAIN: Well, again, I don’t — All I can tell you is I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that’s judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region.

INTERVIEWER: OK, what about Europe? I’m talking about the president of Spain.

McCAIN: What about me what?

INTERVIEWER: OK. Are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

McCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those who are not.

Honestly, I have no idea what’s going on with John McCain. It looks like:

  1. John McCain doesn’t know who Jose Zapatero is.
  2. John McCain doesn’t know if Spain is an ally or enemy of the United States.
  3. John McCain thinks the interviewer is talking about Latin America (even though Spain and the President of Spain are specifically mentioned several times).

Now, I bet most people probably don’t know who Jose Zapatero is or what our foreign policy is in regards to Spain.

But you know what? John McCain isn’t most people–he’s running for President of the United States.  Not knowing one of America’s major allies, a member of the Coalition of the Willing, is a pretty big deal–especially for someone who always talks about his foreign policy ‘experience.’

John McCain just doesn’t know what he’s doing, and I wouldn’t trust him anywhere near the White House.

Free Market

Posted on by Democrashield

Our economic crisis isn’t an accident. It’s not a mistake. This is exactly what conservatives have been pushing for 28 years—a deregulated ‘free market.’

Ever since the days of Reagan, Republicans—including John McCain—have been pushing business deregulation. For decades they’ve told us that the free market fixes all, that the government is the problem and business is the solution and the best thing we could do for the economy is ‘get the government off people’s backs.’

Well, guys, here’s your free market. Is it everything you hoped for?

Let’s be honest here, business regulation isn’t just there to make life difficult for people. It’s designed to prevent the greedy and idiotic business practices that lead to these massive collapses. Most regulations were created and adopted in the wake of major economic failures in order to prevent those failures from happening again. Today’s economy proves that business needs someone looking over their shoulders, making sure corporations are making good decisions and that their drive for profit isn’t taking them down the road to disaster.

Republicans don’t care about you. They don’t care if the economy collapses, they don’t care if you lose your house or life savings or job. All they care about is that corporations make money—and, of course, donate it to them. If they have to dismantle regulations, let business lobbyists write laws and otherwise lay the groundwork for the next economic collapse, so be it.

And when those businesses fail, well, there’s an upside for Wall Street—all those Republicans their newfound profits helped elect can simply bail them out with billions of taxpayer dollars. So even when they lose, they win (but you lose).

Make no mistake about it—this economic crisis isn’t accidental, it’s not a mistake. It’s the natural consequence of conservative governance, where regulations designed to protect consumers and prevent economic collapse are torn down and the ‘free market’ is allowed to reign supreme.

John McCain Invented The Blackberry

Posted on by Democrashield

No, I’m not kidding:

Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate’s top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.

“He did this,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. “Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you’re looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that’s what he did.”

Al Gore, call your office.

[Emphasis added]

So, John McCain owns 10 houses. He wears $500 shoes. He says he doesn’t know much about economics. He says the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But John McCain can fix our economy because–apparently–he invented the Blackberry? Are these guys serious??

John McCain is in trouble if he has to grasp that much to show that he can handle our economy. Then again, I guess that means they have something in common–just like the economy, the McCain campaign is in a meltdown.

UPDATE: Guess what? Research In Motion— the company that actually developed the Blackberry–is Canadian:

RIM Fast Facts

  • Founded in 1984
  • Headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Change

Posted on by Democrashield

Today, John McCain said ‘the fundamentals of our economy are strong.’

What economy is John McCain talking about? Because I see an economy that isn’t strong—unemployment is up, the dollar is weak, the stock market dropped 500 points just today, banks and mortgage companies are failing, families are losing their houses, prices are skyrocketing, wages are stagnating.

The American people know the economy is in a crisis. Then again, unlike John McCain, we don’t own so many houses we can’t keep track of them all; maybe that’s why we and John McCain don’t see eye-to-eye on the economy.

And now McCain is saying that he can fix this mess. Really, Senator? You’ve been in Washington longer than I’ve been alive. Your party has controlled the federal government for most of the past seven years. It’s the Republican Party and our Republican President who laid the foundation of this economic failure—the same party whose standard John McCain now bears, the same President John McCain stood next to and gladly took an endorsement from.

John McCain and the Republican Party have spent the past seven years spending recklessly, running up huge debts on the American people’s credit card. And now that we’re threatening to take the card away, John McCain is saying that he can fix it, he can make things right, just give him one more chance.

Sorry, Senator, but you had your chance. You had 26 years worth of chances. Instead of strengthening our economy, you stood with the very people who built this economic house of cards, and we’re not going to trust the people who put us in this mess to get us out.

I guess when John McCain talks about ‘change,’ he’s referring to all you’ll have left once his economic policies are done with you.

Vice Presidential Experience

Posted on by Democrashield

Below, I’ve put together a rough list of the political experience that each of America’s 46 Vice Presidents had before they took America’s second-highest office  (Note: if an individual had two political roles at one time, that time is only counted once):

John Adams: Continental Congress (1774-1778), Committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence (1776), Massachusetts General Court (1770-1777), Two-time Ambassador to Europe (1777 and 1779), Total years in political office before becoming VP: 9

Thomas Jefferson: House of Burgesses (1769-1770), Continental Congress (1775-1781), Committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence (1776), Virginia House of Delegates (1776-1779), Governor of Virginia (1779-1781), Minister to France (1785-1789), Secretary of State (1789-1793). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 24

Aaron Burr: New York State Assembly (1784-1785 and 1798-1801), New York State Attorney General (1789-1792), United States Senate (1792-1798). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 13

George Clinton: County Clerk–Ulster County, New York (1759 through Vice Presidency), Governor of New York (1777-1795 and 1801-1804), New York State Assembly (1800-1801).  Total years in political office before becoming VP: 45

Elbridge Gerry: Continental Congress (1776-1780 and 1783-1785), United States House of Representatives (1789-1793), Governor of Massachusetts (1810-1812). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 11

Daniel Tompkins: Delegate, New York State Constitutional Convention (1801), New York State Assembly (1803), Supreme Court of New York (1804-1807), Governor of New York (1807-1817). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15

John Calhoun: U.S. House of Representatives (1810-1817), Secretary of War (1817-1825). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15

Martin Van Buren: New York State Attorney General (1815-1819), United States Senate (1821-1828), Governor of New York (1829), Secretary of State (1829-1831). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 14

Richard Johnson: Kentucky House of Representatives (1804-1806), U.S. House of Representatives (1807-1819 and 1829-1833), U.S. Senate (1819-1829). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 29

John Tyler: U.S. House (1816-1821), Virginia House of Delegates (1823-1825), Governor of Virginia (1825-1827), Delegate, Virginia Constitutional Convention (1829-1830), U.S. Senate (1827-1836). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 19

George Dallas: Mayor of Philadelphia (1828-1829), U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1829-1831), U.S. Senate (1831-1833), Attorney General of Pennsylvania (1833-1835), Envoy to Russia (1837-1839). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 9

Millard Fillmore: New York State Assembly (1829-1831), United States House of Representatives (1833-1835 and 1837-1843), New York State Comptroller (1848-1849). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 11

William King: U.S. Senate (1819-1844 and 1848-1852),  Minister to France (1844-1846). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 31

John Breckinridge: Kentucky House of Representatives (1848-1851), U.S. House of Representatives (1851-1855). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 7

Hannibal Hamlin: Maine House of Representatives (1836-1841), U.S. House of Representatives (1843-1847), U.S. Senate (1848-1861). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 22

Andrew Johnson: Tennessee Alderman (1829-1833), Mayor of Greenville, Tennessee (1833-1835), Tennessee House of Representatives (1835-1837), Tennessee Senate (1839-1843), U.S. House of Representatives (1843-1853), Governor of Tennessee (1853-1857), U.S. Senate (1857-1862), Military Governor of Tennessee (1862-1865). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 34

Schuyler Colfax: Indiana Constitutional Convention (1849-1850), U.S. House of Representatives (1855-1869; served as Speaker of the House 1863-1869). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15

Henry WIlson: Massachusetts State Legislature (1841-1852), Delegate, Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (1853), U.S. Senate (1855-1873). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 30

William Wheeler: District Attorney–Franklin County, New York (1846-1849), New York State Assembly (1850-1851), New York State Senate (1858-1860), U.S. House of Representatives (1861-1863 and 1869-1877), Delegate, New York Constitutional Convention (1867 and 1868). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 17

Chester A. Arthur: New York State Quartermaster General (1861-1862), Collector of the Port of New York (1871-1878). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8

Thomas Hendricks: Indiana House of Representatives (1848-1850), Delegate, Indiana Constitutional Convention (1851), U.S. House of Representatives (1851-1855), Commissioner, General Land Office (1855-1859), U.S. Senate (1863-1869), Governor of Indiana (1873-1877). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 21

Levi Morton: U.S. House of Representatives (1879-1881), Minister to France (1881-1885). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 6

Adlai Stevenson I: District Attorney (1864-1868), U.S. House of Representatives (1875-1877 and 1879-1881). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8

Garret Hobart: City Council –Paterson, New Jersey (1871), New Jersey General Assembly (1872-1876), New Jersey Senate (1876-1882), Chairman of the New Jersey Republican Senate Committee (1880-1891), Member of the Republican National Committee from New Jersey (1884-1896). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 25

Theodore Roosevelt: United States Civil Service Commission (1888-1895), New York City Police Commissioner (1895-1897), Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1897-1898), Governor of New York (1898-1901). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 13

Charles Fairbanks: United States Senate (1897-1905). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8

James Sherman: U.S. House of Representatives (1887-1891 and 1893-1909). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 20

Thomas Riley Marshall: Governor of Indiana (1909-1913). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 4

Calvin Coolidge: City Council–Northhampton, Massachusetts (1898-1899), City Solicitor– Northhampton, Massachusetts (1900-1901), Clerk of Courts–Northhampton, Massachusetts (1903), Massachusetts State House of Representatives (1907-1909), Mayor of Northhampton, Massachusetts (1910-1911), Massachusetts State Senate (1912-1916), Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (1916-1919), Governor of Massachusetts (1919-1921). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15

Charles Dawes: Comptroller of the Currency (1898-1901), Director, Bureau of the Budget (1921-1925). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 6

Charles Curtis: U.S. House of Representatives (1893-1907), U.S. Senate (1907-1913 and 1915-1929). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 34

John Nance Garner: Texas House of Representatives (1898-1902), U.S. House of Representatives (1903-1933; served as Speaker of the House 1931-1933). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 35

Henry Wallace: Secretary of Agriculture (1933-1941). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8

Harry Truman: Court of the Eastern District of Jackson County–Missouri (1923-1925 and 1927-1933), U.S. Senate (1935 -1945). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 18

Alben Barkley: Prosecuting Attorney–McCracken County, Kentucky (1905-1909), County Court–McCracken County, Kentucky (1909-1913), U.S. House of Representatives (1913-1927), U.S. Senate (1927-1949). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 44

Richard Nixon: U.S. House of Representatives (1947-1950), U.S Senate (1950-1953). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 6

Lyndon Johnson: U.S. House of Representatives (1937-1949), U.S. Senate (1949-1961). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 24

Hubert Humphrey: Mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota (1945-1949), U.S. Senate (1949-1964). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 19

Spiro Agnew: Board of Zoning Appeals–Baltimore County, Maryland (1957-1962), Executive–Baltimore County, Maryland (1962-1966), Governor of Maryland (1966-1969). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 12

Gerald Ford: U.S. House of Representatives (1949-1973). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 24

Nelson Rockefeller: Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (1940-1944), Inter-American Development Commission and Corporation (1940-1947), Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs (1944-1945), Special Assistant to President Eisenhower for Foreign Affairs (1954-1955), Governor of New York (1959-1973).  Total years in political office before becoming VP: 21

Walter Mondale: Minnesota Attorney General (1960-1964), President’s Consumer Advisory Council (1960-1964), U.S. Senate (1964-1976). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 16

George H. W. Bush: Chairman, Harris County Republican Party–Harris County, Texas (1964), U.S. House of Representatives (1967-1971), Ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1973), Chairman of the RNC (1973-1974), Chief of the U.S. Liaison’s Office in the People’s Republic of China (1974-1975), Director of the CIA (1976-1977). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 11

Dan Quayle: U.S. House of Representatives (1977-1981), U.S. Senate (1981-1989). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 12

Al Gore: United States House of Representatives (1976-1984), U.S. Senate (1984-1993). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 17

Dick Cheney: Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (1969-1970), White House Staff Assistant (1971), Assistant Director of the Cost of Living Council (1971–73), Deputy Assistant to the President (1974–1975), White House Chief of Staff (1975-1977), U.S. House of Representatives (1979-1989), Secretary of Defense (1989-1993), Total years in political office before becoming VP: 22

There have been 46 Vice Presidents in America’s history. The average Vice President has had 17.9 years of political experience before taking office.  Since 1900, that average has dipped a bit to 17.6 years.

Now, let’s look at this year’s VP candidates:

Sarah Palin: City Council–Wasilla, Alaska (1992-1996), Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (1996-2002), Governor of Alaska (2006-2009). Total years in political office before (potentially) becoming VP: 13

Historically, Palin’s experience is toward the low end–out of 46 Vice Presidents, there have been 30 as or more experienced than Sarah Palin; only 16 have been less experienced than her.

Joe Biden: County Council–New Castle County, Delaware (1970-1972), U.S. Senate (1973-2009). Total years in political office before (potentially) becoming VP: 39

Historically, Joe Biden’s experience is very high–out of 46 Vice Presidents, there have been only 2 as or more experienced than Joe Biden; 44 have been less experienced than him.

Party Of Whiners

Posted on by Democrashield

[pic from BAGnewsNotes]

So, it turns out that the Sarah Palin-Charlie Gibson interview was a disaster for Gov. Palin.

Gibson actually asked some tough questions; at times he actually caught Palin off-guard. When asked about the Bush Doctrine–you know, that ideology that has defined American foreign policy since 9/11–Palin was clueless, stumbling through a confused, wandering answer.

The right’s reaction to the interview is equal parts predictable and pathetic–“how dare he make her explain and defend her beliefs! How disrespectful! Doesn’t he know it’s sexist to question Sarah Palin!? He must be in the tank for Obama!”

In other words, more pathetic whining. Are these guys going to let their Presidential ticket get bogged down with this stupid nonsense?

And now Politico is reporting that Palin’s next interview will be with Fox’s Sean Hannity–I guess Gibson didn’t lob her enough softballs for her liking.

A few weeks ago, when Palin was first chosen, I called her selection an epic fail. A few people have asked me since then if I regret my initial characterization.

No, I don’t.

See, Palin gave a good introductory speech and a good speech at the RNC. But both of those speeches–and every Palin speech since–were written by the McCain campaign and fed to her line-by-line. Every event she’s held was carefully choreographed. Palin was even carefully scripted during the Gibson interview–she stumbled when Gibson asked her questions she wasn’t prepped for.

We have 53 days left until the election. It’s going to be a long campaign for John McCain if he thinks he can keep Sarah Palin under wraps–or giving softball interviews to friendly pundits–until November. It’s going to be a long campaign if he thinks he can get away with crying sexism whenever a journalist asks Palin a question that catches her off guard and exposes her unpreparedness.

It’s becoming clear that Sarah Palin’s media honeymoon is over. The press’ fascination with her as someone fresh and new and compelling is ending. The more they try to pin down what her beliefs are and what she would do in office, the clearer it will become that Sarah Palin is unfit for office. This interview is just the first step down that road.

Deference (UPDATED)

Posted on by Democrashield

Tomorrow night, Sarah Palin will give her much-anticipated first interview to Charles Gibson. I expect it’ll go extremely well–the McCain campaign has spent weeks feeding her talking points, while Gibson has been very friendly towards John McCain in the past.

Palin’s interview will be the latest in a long line of heavily-scripted campaign events–the McCain campaign has kept her away from the media, instead feeding her talking points and putting her in front of large, pre-selected crowds.

Why are they being so cautious with her?

A few weeks ago, the McCain campaign sniffed that they were going to keep Palin away from the media until they started showing her ‘deference.’

Deference?

Sorry, John, but Palin isn’t running for Miss Alaska, she’s running for Vice President. The media shouldn’t be showing her deference–they should be examining her positions, her beliefs and her policies as much as possible. The media’s duty is to put candidates under a microscope and to report what they find so that–come election day–we the people know exactly who we’re voting for. So no, John, the media shouldn’t be showing Sarah Palin ‘deference.’

I remember when Hillary Clinton shed a tear on the campaign trail–conservatives roundly mocked her for it, and one high-profile right-wing blogger said that ‘the crying tactic’ wouldn’t work very well with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Well, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won’t show Sarah Palin deference. Vladimir Putin won’t show her deference. Kim Jong Il won’t show her deference. Robert Mugabe won’t show her deference. Moqtada Al-Sadr won’t show her deference. Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas won’t show her deference.

What’ll happen when they go toe-to-toe with her? What’ll she do when they attack and criticize and insult her? Will the McCain administration complain about how mean and unfair they’re being? Will Palin hide in a Cheney-like undisclosed location until they all agree to play fair?

Come on, John. This is just ridiculous.

Now, I’m sure some people will say Palin doesn’t need to be ready on day one because she’ll have years to learn foreign policy under John McCain. Well that’s ridiculous, too. The Vice President has to be ready to take over on inauguration day; if something happens to the President, you have to be able to fill in. Period. There’s no room for on-the-job training. And if Sarah Palin can’t stand up to the news media, how can she stand up to America’s enemies?

In this dangerous world, America needs a steady hand. What we don’t need is a reckless President and a woefully-unprepared Vice President. The stakes are just too high–and the world is just too dangerous–for McCain-Palin.

UPDATE: Case in point, the latest McCain ad.

“Oh my God, guys, they’re being disrespectful to Sarah Palin! They’re so mean!!”

Sarah Palin is running to be Vice President of the United States, the second-most powerful person in the world.

There are countries out there that hate America.  There are people out there who want to destroy America.  They’re not going to treat Vice President Palin with deference and respect.  If she can’t handle a simple political campaign, how is she going to handle being Vice President?

If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  If you can’t stand the campaign, don’t run for office.  But don’t sit there and whine about how the media and your opponents are just so mean to you–it’s shameful to the office Palin is running for.

America needs strong leadership.  What we don’t need are self-centered politicians whining not getting enough respect. It’s pathetic.

Honor

Posted on by Democrashield

There was once an honorable man named John McCain.

That honorable man became a soldier.  He went to war. He got captured and became a prisoner of war. During that time he showed true courage and bravery.

When he came home, he was still an honorable man. Now, he made mistakes in his personal life—particularly in his first marriage—but there was still plenty of honor in him.

That man got elected to Congress—first the House, then the Senate. And for most of that time, he was honorable—standing up for his beliefs, sometimes having to stand against his own party.

Eight years ago John McCain, that honorable man, ran for President. But he  ended up running against some exceptionally dishonorable people; people who dragged him through the mud and–using underhanded smears–cost him the Presidency.

After his defeat, this honorable man realized something.  He realized that he couldn’t become President if he stayed honorable. So John McCain made a choice—he decided that being President was more important than being honorable. So John McCain put becoming President first and put everything else second.

Now, a lot of John McCain’s supporters will say he’s still honorable. But you know what? It’s not honorable to stand with the worst President in America’s history, even as his policies are hurting millions of your fellow countrymen. It’s not honorable change your positions to appeal to the radical fringes of your political party. It’s not honorable to hire the same team of people who dragged you through the mud last campaign to run your current campaign.

It’s not honorable to help the privileged–the wealthy and the corporations–while hurting the middle class. It’s not honorable to keep American troops in the middle of a war we should never have fought and that we shouldn’t lose another life fighting. It’s not honorable to spend $10 billion of the people’s money a month to fund a war the people themselves oppose.

It’s not honorable for a candidate to attack his opponent for being inexperienced, then turn around and pick a less experienced running mate. It’s not honorable to pick a radical ideologue as your running mate just to please your political base. It’s not honorable to lie about your opponent, to lie about his record, to stand by while your running mate lies about her record time and time again, even after those lies have been disproved.

Most of all, with all the challenges our country faces, it’s not honorable to waste America’s time by distracting us with trivial nonsense. It’s more than not honorable—it’s dishonorable. It’s unworthy of our democracy.

During an interview not too long ago, John McCain was asked to define honor. He couldn’t. That’s because John McCain has lost his honor.  John McCain put being President first and everything else second—and the shameful, dishonest, deplorable campaign we’re seeing right now is proof that he has put honor in the backseat.

Poutrage

Posted on by Democrashield

So at a rally today, when talking about McCain-Palin, Barack Obama says:

“You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years.”

Now, most of us understand what that sentence mean.  The McCain campaign, on the other hand, hears:

“Sarah Palin is a pig.”

Of course, if anyone in the McCain camp has ever talked to the American people, they’d realize that ‘lipstick on a pig’ is a pretty common–and pretty innocuous–saying.

Then again, the McCain campaign isn’t stupid.  They know that, if this election is about the issues, they lose.  Period. So they’re going to take every instance like this–anything they can drum up into a scandal, anything they can build faux-outrage over–and run with it.  They’re going to try to distract us all from the serious problems facing our country to focus on distractions like pregnancies and mooseburgers and pigs.

Oh, and I don’t remember any outrage from conservatives when John McCain said this:

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan, he said it was “eerily reminiscent” of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” he said of her proposal.

So, guys, if Barack Obama insulted Sarah Palin, John McCain insulted Hillary Clinton.  Either that, or you’re drumming up a lot of scandal over nothing. Which wouldn’t really be anything new, actually.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Smackdown

Posted on by Democrashield

Earlier today:

Obama accused Bush of “tinkering around the edges” and “kicking the can down the road to the next president” with his plans to remove 8,000 US troops from Iraq in the coming months and send 4,500 to Afghanistan by January.

“At this point what it appears is that the next president will inherit a status quo that is still unstable,” Obama said, adding that his Republican White House rival John McCain was bent on the same course as Bush.

[…]

The Illinois senator said that on Afghanistan, he was “glad that the president is moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years.”

But he added: “His plan comes up short — it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency.

“What President Bush and Senator McCain don’t understand is that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was — the central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks seven years later,” Obama said.

“Now, the choice for the American people could not be clearer. John McCain has been talking a lot about change, but he’s running for four more years of the same foreign policy that we’ve had under George Bush.

“Senator McCain will continue the overwhelming focus on Iraq that has taken our eye off of the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11,” Obama said.

“It’s time to change our foreign policy,” he said.

“Because seven years after 9/11, we are still fighting a war without end in Iraq and we still haven’t taken out the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We heard no explanation for why (Al-Qaeda leader) Osama bin Laden is still at large, because that’s where George Bush and John McCain’s judgment has gotten us.”

[Emphasis added]

Ouch.  John McCain and George Bush will be feeling that one for a while.

We all know that there’s a lot at stake in this election.

And let’s face it, America’s security and defense are threatened right now, and the Bush-McCain policies of the past few years have allowed that to happen. Their policies have left our military overstretched and weakened; they have taken our precious resources away from fighting terrorism and dumped them into Iraq; they have taken America’s focus off of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to see that Bush is finally sending more troops to Afghanistan; then again, Barack Obama has been saying we should do that for years. If Obama were President, we would have already sent more troops to Afghanistan and we’d be well on our way to securing that country.  We’d also be on our way to securing the federally-administered tribal areas of Pakistan, where some terrorist groups are currently operating out of.

The truth is that on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama was right and John McCain and George Bush were wrong. If Obama were President these past eight years, our country would be far, far better off than it is right now.

Irresponsible

Posted on by Democrashield

The McCain-Palin campaign loves to talk about much of a fiscally-responsible maverick reformer Sarah Palin is.

But does that record really hold up?

Well, as Mayor of Wasilla, Palin did save the people money–by forcing rape victims to pay for their own ‘rape kit’ forensic examinations:

But in fact, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from 1996 to 2002. And according to an Alaskan news article in the local Wasilla paper in the year 2000, the City of Wasilla, under Mayor Palin, charged rape victims for their own forensic tests. Most Alaskan municipalities picked up the tab themselves, but not Wasilla, the article notes. You see, the city of Wasilla, the article notes, didn’t want to “burden” taxpayers with having to support victims of rape. Yes, they were more interested in lowering taxes.

[Emphasis added]

In fact, the only reason Wasilla stopped forcing rape victims to fund their own investigations was because Alaska’s Democratic Governor, Tony Knowles, signed a bill into law forcing the town to end the practice.  In addition, the Frontiersman article cited above notes Wasilla as the only place in Alaska that actually charged rape victims to pay for their own investigations.

I guess you could call that fiscally-conservative, though I’m not sure burdening rape victims is the best way Sarah Palin could have saved money.

Then again, saving taxpayers money apparently stopped being a priority when Palin moved up to the Governor’s office:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a “per diem” allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

[…]

[Palin] wrote some form of “Lodging — own residence” or “Lodging — Wasilla residence” more than 30 times at the same time she took a per diem, according to the reports. In two dozen undated amendments to the reports, the governor deleted the reference to staying in her home but still charged the per diem.

[…]

Palin charged the state a per diem for working on Nov. 22, 2007 — Thanksgiving Day. The reason given, according to the expense report, was the Great Alaska Shootout, an annual NCAA college basketball tournament held in Anchorage.

In separate filings, the state was billed about $25,000 for Palin’s daughters’ expenses and $19,000 for her husband’s.

[…]

In the past, per diem claims by Alaska state officials have carried political risks. In 1988, the head of the state Commerce Department was pilloried for collecting a per diem charge of $50 while staying in his Anchorage home, according to local news accounts. The commissioner, the late Tony Smith, resigned amid a series of controversies.

“It was quite the little scandal,” said Tony Knowles, the Democratic governor from 1994 to 2000. “I gave a direction to all my commissioners if they were ever in their house, whether it was Juneau or elsewhere, they were not to get a per diem because, clearly, it is and it looks like a scam — you pay yourself to live at home,” he said.

[Emphasis added]

Of course, Palin’s supporters say that she’s allowed to charge the state for whatever she can reasonably classify as a business expense, and they’re  technically right.

But this isn’t a matter of breaking the law, it’s a matter of Palin displaying terrible judgment (and just a bit of greed)–she’s charging taxpayers to pay herself to live at home and attend basketball games.  And Sarah Palin’s doing this even though the last time a high-ranking state official did the same he was forced to resign.

I wouldn’t call charging your taxpayers for your personal expenses (or expenses you never incurred) fiscally responsible.  Nor would I call this fiscally responsible, either:

Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 21/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska’s government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it.

[Emphasis added]

Sarah Palin’s Alaska: highest in taxing, highest in spending.

Hey McCain campaign, what’s all this talk I hear about Sarah Palin being a maverick who reformed Alaska? Because all I see is another power-abusing Republican who mismanages the people’s money and stuffs her pockets with tax dollars.

Whoops

Posted on by Democrashield

Guess Sarah Palin isn’t so hot without a teleprompter:

Palin Makes Her First Gaffe

Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” The companies, as McClatchy reported, “aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.”

[Emphasis added]

No matter how many talking points Rick Davis & co. feed her, Sarah Palin just doesn’t understand the issues our country is facing.

We are in the midst of a mortgage crisis, yet the person who wants to be our next Vice President doesn’t even understand how these two giants–responsible for $12 trillion worth of mortgages–work.

How are the Republicans supposed to fix an economy they don’t even understand?