Throughout this election season we have seen wild accusations, strong feelings and deceitful advertising on many issues. Nationally, this is focused on the Presidential race, but here in California we are seeing the same kind of bitter focus on a piece of legislation that, for a large portion of our population, is equally important.
I am among those with strong feelings about the proposal to amend the state constitution to define legal marriage as being between a man and a woman. Simply put, I must tell you that I am categorically against any law which denies any citizen their civil rights.
The primary opposition to that view is being based in the churches. It’s predictable. It is also, from my point of view, incredibly sad.
Approximately two thousand years ago, a transformational figure emerged from a small town called Nazareth. This man’s teachings and morality were so revolutionary that they have literally transformed the globe. He was an incredible pioneer… not in the area of religion, although that certainly applies. But in civil rights.
Let’s look at the man, his actions and his teaching. I am restraining this discussion to the actual words and deeds of the man Jesus. I am not, for the purposes of this piece, interested in the epistles of his followers. Also, I am taking the Gospels at face value, ignoring the questions about the literal truth of the document and focusing on the man they describe.
Jesus of Nazareth was the one of the first major western figures to propose such revolutionary concepts as the separation of church and state, pacifism in the face of persecution and a commitment to care for the poor, sick and disabled. But the leadership position I wish to emphasize here is his belief in equality.
If you examine the teachings and words of Jesus, you find a dramatic difference between him and his contemporaries. One that is less obvious to us because of the very changes his teachings helped bring about.
In that time, it was an accepted truth that a king was in all ways superior to his subjects, that only a priest could speak to God and that people who were different were inferior. Women were chattel. Children were an expendable commodity. Slavery was common. Those who worked in certain professions were not only misguided, but evil and sub-human.
Jesus rejected all of the above. He recruited his disciples from the ranks of fishermen. Laborers, whose lack of formal education was appalling to the men who sat in the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. He dared to suggest that a common man was as valuable as a king or priest. He not only suffered the attentions of children, he adored them. He sought out the companionship of women, not as sexual vessels, but as his intellectual equal. He healed lepers, who were considered to have been afflicted by God for their sins. He comforted the insane, who were considered to be possessed by demons.
And perhaps most shocking of all, he preached that Samaritans and Gentiles of all sorts, even Romans, were worthy of respect. Just as were such “scum” as tax collectors and prostitutes.
When he would not desist from these teachings, he was considered so incredibly dangerous that he was put to death. Not by the civil authorities. According to most accounts, they did everything they could to avoid condemning him. He was condemned by the religious establishment of his own country. By those viewed by the masses he preached to as closest to God. By the men who should most have embraced his message, were they truly concerned with souls instead of shekels.
Now, those who occupy the same place in the consciousness of California are arguing that a group of God’s children are somehow less deserving of civil rights. That granting these civil rights, despite not changing a single thing about their own lives, will somehow reduce the value of marriage. They are arguing that a “true believer” has no choice but to vote yes on Proposition Eight.
In doing so, they take a direct stand against the ideals of Jesus of Nazareth. They betray the very concepts this man died a horrible death to defend. They deny his example. Note that I am not talking about sin. I am talking about the legal principles that Jesus pioneered.
Peter denied his Lord three times. These people prepare to follow the example of Peter on November fourth. Peter’s guilt, by all accounts, followed him for the rest of his days and even influenced the manner of his death.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus of Nazareth were to cast a ballot this November, he would vote against this measure to disenfranchise a portion of the masses. Every position of his ministry expresses this. He died rather than reject his convictions.
If you truly honor this man, how can you betray the principles of his life?
Ignore your personal Sanhedrin. Vote no on Proposition Eight.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Final Debate
It was the best of the three in many ways. Sitting across from each other, Barack Obama and John McCain were forced to face each other. We saw McCain finally acknowledge his opponent. We saw Obama "called forth" to answer the accusations about Ayers and ACORN.
It was the best moderated of the events, as someone finally took the initiative to keep the two candidates on track. That, the nature of the setting and the finality of this being the last chance to speak to the entire nation in one moment created some much more impassioned speech.
I watched this one on CNN, after watching the first on PBS and the second on NBC. CNN is the network which has been supplying focus groups with a dial to rate their reaction. The individuals turn the dial to indicate their positive or negative feelings, which are then shown on a graph at the base of the television screen. I liked the graph. It was interesting.
It absolutely PLUNGED when McCain went negative.
Obama seemed to score best with the graph on Education and on Health Care.
On the economy and taxes, it was more even.
Obama flatlined a few times, right in the middle... but he only rarely went below the midline. And most of the time when he did, it seemed to be when he was basically forced to "counter-punch" negative.
I saw nothing that I thought was a game changer. McCain started much better than in the past two debates. But he lost that momentum in the middle, which I thought was more even and then he crashed. I felt Obama won the last third.
There was also a dramatic difference on the questions about the VP choice. Sarah Palin has certainly been a divisive choice. While she has fired up the Republican base, It would seem evident that the country as a whole do not approve of her and do not feel she is qualified. Joe Biden does not seem to evoke much emotion, yet people do trust him and feel that he could lead the nation.
Finally, I noticed that McCain did much better with men than women. While this was most clear on the Roe v. Wade question, it was visible throughout the night. If we use the CNN focus group as a model, I would have to conclude that women simply do not trust John McCain.
Every media outlet while give you the soundbites, so I feel no need to rehash them. (We will all be sick of hearing about Joe the Plumber soon.) I will say that I feel that Obama did perform better than McCain, although I know my own bias plays into that. But Barack appeared calm and measured. John McCain, on the other hand, sometimes appeared as though he were barely able to contain his anger. I think that will make an impact. Most people don't want that reaction in a crisis.
In the end, McCain did not get the dramatic faux pas or mistake from Obama that he needed, nor did he find a way to differentiate himself from the messages he has given out on the campaign trail.
Obama could have lost the election tonight. He could not win. Basically, Obama held serve. With a ten point advantage in the polls, that may very well be enough.
Judging this debate as an isolated event, I still feel Obama won the evening. However, there is little doubt that this was McCain's best performance. But Obama was far more clear and impressive on Health Care and Education and although he did not hammer McCain on the economy as he has in the past, he still seemed better equipped to handle the issue than his opponent.
It was the best moderated of the events, as someone finally took the initiative to keep the two candidates on track. That, the nature of the setting and the finality of this being the last chance to speak to the entire nation in one moment created some much more impassioned speech.
I watched this one on CNN, after watching the first on PBS and the second on NBC. CNN is the network which has been supplying focus groups with a dial to rate their reaction. The individuals turn the dial to indicate their positive or negative feelings, which are then shown on a graph at the base of the television screen. I liked the graph. It was interesting.
It absolutely PLUNGED when McCain went negative.
Obama seemed to score best with the graph on Education and on Health Care.
On the economy and taxes, it was more even.
Obama flatlined a few times, right in the middle... but he only rarely went below the midline. And most of the time when he did, it seemed to be when he was basically forced to "counter-punch" negative.
I saw nothing that I thought was a game changer. McCain started much better than in the past two debates. But he lost that momentum in the middle, which I thought was more even and then he crashed. I felt Obama won the last third.
There was also a dramatic difference on the questions about the VP choice. Sarah Palin has certainly been a divisive choice. While she has fired up the Republican base, It would seem evident that the country as a whole do not approve of her and do not feel she is qualified. Joe Biden does not seem to evoke much emotion, yet people do trust him and feel that he could lead the nation.
Finally, I noticed that McCain did much better with men than women. While this was most clear on the Roe v. Wade question, it was visible throughout the night. If we use the CNN focus group as a model, I would have to conclude that women simply do not trust John McCain.
Every media outlet while give you the soundbites, so I feel no need to rehash them. (We will all be sick of hearing about Joe the Plumber soon.) I will say that I feel that Obama did perform better than McCain, although I know my own bias plays into that. But Barack appeared calm and measured. John McCain, on the other hand, sometimes appeared as though he were barely able to contain his anger. I think that will make an impact. Most people don't want that reaction in a crisis.
In the end, McCain did not get the dramatic faux pas or mistake from Obama that he needed, nor did he find a way to differentiate himself from the messages he has given out on the campaign trail.
Obama could have lost the election tonight. He could not win. Basically, Obama held serve. With a ten point advantage in the polls, that may very well be enough.
Judging this debate as an isolated event, I still feel Obama won the evening. However, there is little doubt that this was McCain's best performance. But Obama was far more clear and impressive on Health Care and Education and although he did not hammer McCain on the economy as he has in the past, he still seemed better equipped to handle the issue than his opponent.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Blog Action Day 2008: Poverty
Today, I take a break from berating presidential politics. It's Blog Action Day and the subject is Poverty.
Odds are, a good percentage of those who might read this have only dealt with the issue at arm's length. That's not a bad thing, by the way. I'm not going to sit here and yell at you for being above the poverty line. The old saw about catching more flies with honey definitely applies to charity. Getting angry doesn't increase donations. Every activist working in an inner city or on country back roads knows this very well.
My own experience is a little closer, although I have never felt poor. But there were weeks growing up when we ate the same thing three or four days in a row. Corned beef, cheese sandwiches and hot dogs & beans are intricately woven into my childhood. There were years when Christmas was more about refilling the sock drawer than a new bicycle. By some definitions, my family came close to that scary "poverty line." Close enough to be on government assistance a time or two. Close enough to shop at a thrift store or Pic n' Save instead of Macy's, let alone Nordstroms.
But let's face it, that's nothing. We had a roof over our head and we live in a country that helps. It could help more, but we'll save that topic for later.
I live in San Diego. It is my home and it always will be, even if my travels lead me other places for extended times. I grew up here, in a city that draws tourists and rightfully seems to have fewer problems than many urban areas. We do have many people living on that edge, although we don't have projects like Chicago or abandoned buildings like New York. We have families that are just scraping by.
However, living in San Diego also means living next to Tijuana.
I have seen poverty. Real poverty. The whole family living in a room whose walls melt in the rain, under an aluminum sheet roof where everyone has to be outside in the afternoon because inside becomes an oven. In high school, I helped feed orphans whose lives made me vow never to be unthankful about the conditions as I grew up. I have seen a child kneeling on a sidewalk leading to the United States, unwashed and awake at three a.m. because he has no school to go to in the morning, singing "La Bamba" and hammering a cheap guitar with three broken strings. Hoping that some drunk American teenager, who has crossed the border to party, will toss him a quarter. Mothers sitting under an overhang with an infant suckling while the baby's brother and sister try to get someone to buy Chiclets.
Scenes that we like to think exist only in India or Africa happen on hillsides that, on a clear day, I can see from my house. Unlike Sarah Palin, I don't think that just because I can see the hills of Tijuana makes me an expert on how to erase the scourge of poverty from our planet.
I don't wonder at the causes of illegal immigration. If I could get my family out of those conditions, I too would cross a desert to find a minimum wage job.
And yet, I can become desensitized. I've grown up with this, seen it a thousand times. It's only when someone points it out to me that I feel the things I felt the first time I saw it.
We are the lucky ones. If you own a computer to read this on, you are living in greater luxury than the majority of the people who have lived on this planet. And you are living in greater comfort than a great many living on it today.
Do something.
On days when I remember, I donate clothes to thrift stores. Toys my children have outgrown. I have fed the poor, but not recently. I have done volunteer work. I am proud of the efforts I have made, both with my time and my money. I am proud to be part of organizations like Coming Together.
But there are times when I need to be reminded that I can do more.
If you are out there and you aren't doing something, do it now. You are already on the computer. Make a donation. Ten bucks. The cost of a couple hours entertainment at the movie house will feed a houseful of children in Tijuana. I don't need to point out where… you know how to use Google and I don't really care which charity you pick. The next time they ask you in the checkout line to donate a dollar, say yes. If a dirty five year old sings "La Bamba" at you, have the compassion to empty your pockets of their change. It means a lot more to him than to you.
I don't care what you do. There are a thousand choices.
But do it. We are the lucky ones. Share some luck today. Believe me, the feeling you get back is worth it.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
John McCain Stars In "The Gambler"
One can almost imagine the frustration of Michael Jordan.
Gambling rumors once came close to destroying his lucrative endorsements. Yet this fall, the Chicago Bulls great has watched as a front page story in the New York Times about a presidential contender's habit has immediately disappeared from the public's attention.
John McCain doesn't hide his habit. Is it because of this, because he can sit there and respond, "I am a betting man" on national television, that no one is interested in what this could mean as part of the philosophy of the Commander In Chief?
The easy excuse is that we assume that a man who has spent twenty-five years in a position of great authority is beyond the temptation to follow his reckless urges on matters of national importance. After all, no President would take such wild chances. Just because someone enjoys putting their money on the table in Vegas doesn't mean they would gamble with the responsibilities of their office.
The problem with this assumption is that Mr. McCain's own behavior is contrary to it. The McCain campaign has been rolling the dice for months, and they continue to do so without the slightest hesitation. Sarah Palin is only the most obvious of these questionable decisions, and the book is still out on the wisdom of that choice.
In the immediate aftermath of the campaign's controversial decision to name the Alaska governor as running mate, it seemed to be a good bet. The polls in the days that followed allowed the campaign to rake in a few chips, and it energized the Republican base in a gratifying way. In short, the decision was a short term winner.
However, as any race track aficionado knows, hitting a long shot early does not necessarily mean that you will leave with more money in your pocket than you had on arrival. In many cases, quite the opposite is true. Your success at the beginning often fuels wild and unwise choices late in the afternoon, so that by the time you head for the parking lot, you end up down far more than you ever intended to spend.
John McCain has been laying crazy bets for the last month. Mortgage plans and "Who is Barack Obama?" are just two of them. The most damaging was the false suspension of his campaign, a mistake he is now trying to minimize by returning to David Letterman. Upsetting the only man more popular in Indiana than Larry Bird was hardly a wise choice.
So, John McCain is willing to gamble with the choices he makes in his campaign. A campaign that is the culmination of years of preparation and in itself is a fulfillment of a lifetime struggle to emerge from the shadows of his famous father and grandfather.
The Presidential nomination is the most important thing that has ever happened to Senator McCain. It is obvious, in his demeanor and in his desperate abandonment of many of the moral positions he has held throughout public life, how much the presidency means to him. Yet his impulses remain. In the pursuit of the one goal that has dominated his destiny for decades, John McCain is immediately willing to shake those dice, ask Sarah Palin to blow on them and let fly. He'll take his chances.
The problem is that if he wins his biggest bet, the stakes will change forever. It won't be his livelihood and reputation on the line. It will be the well-being, safety, and security of every single one of us. If John McCain somehow manages to go on a three week winning streak and ends up in the White House, his long shot win will fuel years of belief in his own luck.
Every pit boss in Vegas will tell you that, eventually, the house always comes out ahead.
Gambling rumors once came close to destroying his lucrative endorsements. Yet this fall, the Chicago Bulls great has watched as a front page story in the New York Times about a presidential contender's habit has immediately disappeared from the public's attention.
John McCain doesn't hide his habit. Is it because of this, because he can sit there and respond, "I am a betting man" on national television, that no one is interested in what this could mean as part of the philosophy of the Commander In Chief?
The easy excuse is that we assume that a man who has spent twenty-five years in a position of great authority is beyond the temptation to follow his reckless urges on matters of national importance. After all, no President would take such wild chances. Just because someone enjoys putting their money on the table in Vegas doesn't mean they would gamble with the responsibilities of their office.
The problem with this assumption is that Mr. McCain's own behavior is contrary to it. The McCain campaign has been rolling the dice for months, and they continue to do so without the slightest hesitation. Sarah Palin is only the most obvious of these questionable decisions, and the book is still out on the wisdom of that choice.
In the immediate aftermath of the campaign's controversial decision to name the Alaska governor as running mate, it seemed to be a good bet. The polls in the days that followed allowed the campaign to rake in a few chips, and it energized the Republican base in a gratifying way. In short, the decision was a short term winner.
However, as any race track aficionado knows, hitting a long shot early does not necessarily mean that you will leave with more money in your pocket than you had on arrival. In many cases, quite the opposite is true. Your success at the beginning often fuels wild and unwise choices late in the afternoon, so that by the time you head for the parking lot, you end up down far more than you ever intended to spend.
John McCain has been laying crazy bets for the last month. Mortgage plans and "Who is Barack Obama?" are just two of them. The most damaging was the false suspension of his campaign, a mistake he is now trying to minimize by returning to David Letterman. Upsetting the only man more popular in Indiana than Larry Bird was hardly a wise choice.
So, John McCain is willing to gamble with the choices he makes in his campaign. A campaign that is the culmination of years of preparation and in itself is a fulfillment of a lifetime struggle to emerge from the shadows of his famous father and grandfather.
The Presidential nomination is the most important thing that has ever happened to Senator McCain. It is obvious, in his demeanor and in his desperate abandonment of many of the moral positions he has held throughout public life, how much the presidency means to him. Yet his impulses remain. In the pursuit of the one goal that has dominated his destiny for decades, John McCain is immediately willing to shake those dice, ask Sarah Palin to blow on them and let fly. He'll take his chances.
The problem is that if he wins his biggest bet, the stakes will change forever. It won't be his livelihood and reputation on the line. It will be the well-being, safety, and security of every single one of us. If John McCain somehow manages to go on a three week winning streak and ends up in the White House, his long shot win will fuel years of belief in his own luck.
Every pit boss in Vegas will tell you that, eventually, the house always comes out ahead.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The Moment Which Defined This Election? "That One."
It's a catchy headline that a columnist salivates over. Yet I found myself so reluctant to use it that I decided not to follow my normal pattern of writing immediately after a debate due to the way it dominated my thoughts.
With an evening to think on it and a good night's sleep behind, I realize it dominated my thoughts for a reason.
The appalling and disrespectful moment when John McCain referred to Barack Obama by pointing a finger sideways and saying "that one" with utter disdain captures everything about the man that gives me pause when I imagine him as President.
Moments can define people. As a writer and a film buff I should know this. When Lawrence of Arabia stands on the roof of the train, when Sidney Poitier says, "They call me Mr. Tibbs!" or when Indiana Jones casually pulls his gun and shoots the swordsman in the marketplace, those characters are defined forever.
John McCain defined himself in that moment. He thinks he is better than everyone around him. He thinks that this presidency is his because he deserves it and no one else does. He showed not only disdain for Barack Obama, but for all of us. Our votes are his by right. He doesn't need to earn them.
See, John McCain thinks he is entitled to that post. He thinks that the fact that he has to go out and cater to all of us in order to be elected is ridiculous. Because why should he have to parade around in front of these people who are beneath him in order to get the job he so obviously deserves?
I struggle with this characterization. It is an awful thing to say about a man who suffered as a P.O.W. and who has spent the great majority of his life in service to his country.
But it fits.
If I was writing John McCain, as a character in a novel, and I needed the reader to "get this" about the character, I could not have chosen a better way to make the point. And it changes the rest of his actions in ways that make sense within the character. It explains his choice of Sarah Palin, since her obvious flaws become inconsequential to a man who thinks he knows so much more than those around him. The pat on the back of the audience member, the constant use of the condescending "my friends" and the repeating of talking points that have already been shown to be untrue all make sense from this point of view into John McCain.
It explains why he thinks he can fly into Washington with a non-suspended suspension of his campaign and think that he will emerge victorious. It explains why he feels it's no big deal to blow off David Letterman. It explains his role in the Keating Five. It explains his first marriage and how it ended. It explains the awful jokes.
And it fits with a man who was involved in three flying accidents in the Navy before he was shot down and yet never lost his wings because of who his father was. With a man who knew they wouldn't kick him out of the Naval Academy. With a man who pledged this spring to run a clean campaign on the issues and instead is running what the New York Times called this morning "one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember."
It explains why he can't look at Obama. It explains why he is okay running the horrible ads. It explains why he can make outrageous claims like Obama not agreeing to ten Town Halls "forced" him to go negative and why he can tell his lies with a wink and a smile.
It's a moment I am not going to be able to shake easily. Because, as a writer, I feel it reveals character. Perfectly. I couldn't have written a better scene and thus I am hard-pressed to explain away what I saw and heard.
The only question to be answered is who John McCain respects less. Barack Obama? Or all of us?
With an evening to think on it and a good night's sleep behind, I realize it dominated my thoughts for a reason.
The appalling and disrespectful moment when John McCain referred to Barack Obama by pointing a finger sideways and saying "that one" with utter disdain captures everything about the man that gives me pause when I imagine him as President.
Moments can define people. As a writer and a film buff I should know this. When Lawrence of Arabia stands on the roof of the train, when Sidney Poitier says, "They call me Mr. Tibbs!" or when Indiana Jones casually pulls his gun and shoots the swordsman in the marketplace, those characters are defined forever.
John McCain defined himself in that moment. He thinks he is better than everyone around him. He thinks that this presidency is his because he deserves it and no one else does. He showed not only disdain for Barack Obama, but for all of us. Our votes are his by right. He doesn't need to earn them.
See, John McCain thinks he is entitled to that post. He thinks that the fact that he has to go out and cater to all of us in order to be elected is ridiculous. Because why should he have to parade around in front of these people who are beneath him in order to get the job he so obviously deserves?
I struggle with this characterization. It is an awful thing to say about a man who suffered as a P.O.W. and who has spent the great majority of his life in service to his country.
But it fits.
If I was writing John McCain, as a character in a novel, and I needed the reader to "get this" about the character, I could not have chosen a better way to make the point. And it changes the rest of his actions in ways that make sense within the character. It explains his choice of Sarah Palin, since her obvious flaws become inconsequential to a man who thinks he knows so much more than those around him. The pat on the back of the audience member, the constant use of the condescending "my friends" and the repeating of talking points that have already been shown to be untrue all make sense from this point of view into John McCain.
It explains why he thinks he can fly into Washington with a non-suspended suspension of his campaign and think that he will emerge victorious. It explains why he feels it's no big deal to blow off David Letterman. It explains his role in the Keating Five. It explains his first marriage and how it ended. It explains the awful jokes.
And it fits with a man who was involved in three flying accidents in the Navy before he was shot down and yet never lost his wings because of who his father was. With a man who knew they wouldn't kick him out of the Naval Academy. With a man who pledged this spring to run a clean campaign on the issues and instead is running what the New York Times called this morning "one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember."
It explains why he can't look at Obama. It explains why he is okay running the horrible ads. It explains why he can make outrageous claims like Obama not agreeing to ten Town Halls "forced" him to go negative and why he can tell his lies with a wink and a smile.
It's a moment I am not going to be able to shake easily. Because, as a writer, I feel it reveals character. Perfectly. I couldn't have written a better scene and thus I am hard-pressed to explain away what I saw and heard.
The only question to be answered is who John McCain respects less. Barack Obama? Or all of us?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Supporting The Troops
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have today released their annual "Report Cards" on the House and Senate. Some of you may be familiar with this idea of giving members of Congress a letter grade based on their voting records and sponsorship of legislation that supports various organizations.
In today's political climate, I consider this organization's grade to be one of those that makes a difference. To me, it has to do with the old value of actions speaking louder than words. Or as John McCain has recently called the concept, not only "talking the talk, but walking the walk."
The results are not surprising to me. But I think that they should be. It saddens me that I am not surprised.
For review, let me point out that the McCain campaign has repeatedly attacked Barack Obama as not supporting the troops. Their attacks have ranged from negative ads released after Obama's trip to Germany to questioning his voting record in both debates to comparing the number of trips he took to Iowa with those he took to Iraq.
John McCain also goes to great lengths to remind everyone of his experience as a POW.
It's something that is one of the great disconnects with John McCain. In my experience, and based on what I read in the experience of most others, the great majority of our veteran's are reluctant to speak about their own service. My father is very proud of his service, as evidenced by his Vietnam Vet bumper sticker and photos of his friends on the wall above his computer. Yet he rarely mentions it, and to actually get him to speak about that time in more than a passing fashion requires emotional trauma.
The IAVA proudly gave out 150 perfect scores this year. That shows the nation's commitment to our troops, even in a very unpopular war. We should all be proud. Unfortunately, they also gave out 9 D's or F's.
Anyway, to the grades of the presidential candidates. Largely due to his absences while on the campaign trail, Barack Obama receives a B. I would greatly prefer that to be otherwise, knowing that it is a subject we both consider of great import, but there it is. Not the top grade, but respectable.
John McCain gets a D.
Let me repeat that. John McCain received a D. Yes, his large number of absences affect his grade. But they also affected Barack Obama, yet he got a B.
Also, if you go to the website of the IAVA and download the full document of their 2008 Report Card, you will notice that while they do not take a politician's military service into the grading, they do notate that service by placing a star next to their name.
Of all the Senators listed, only one man has that honorable star next to the dishonor of a D or an F. John McCain.
Way to "walk the walk" there, John.
In today's political climate, I consider this organization's grade to be one of those that makes a difference. To me, it has to do with the old value of actions speaking louder than words. Or as John McCain has recently called the concept, not only "talking the talk, but walking the walk."
The results are not surprising to me. But I think that they should be. It saddens me that I am not surprised.
For review, let me point out that the McCain campaign has repeatedly attacked Barack Obama as not supporting the troops. Their attacks have ranged from negative ads released after Obama's trip to Germany to questioning his voting record in both debates to comparing the number of trips he took to Iowa with those he took to Iraq.
John McCain also goes to great lengths to remind everyone of his experience as a POW.
It's something that is one of the great disconnects with John McCain. In my experience, and based on what I read in the experience of most others, the great majority of our veteran's are reluctant to speak about their own service. My father is very proud of his service, as evidenced by his Vietnam Vet bumper sticker and photos of his friends on the wall above his computer. Yet he rarely mentions it, and to actually get him to speak about that time in more than a passing fashion requires emotional trauma.
The IAVA proudly gave out 150 perfect scores this year. That shows the nation's commitment to our troops, even in a very unpopular war. We should all be proud. Unfortunately, they also gave out 9 D's or F's.
Anyway, to the grades of the presidential candidates. Largely due to his absences while on the campaign trail, Barack Obama receives a B. I would greatly prefer that to be otherwise, knowing that it is a subject we both consider of great import, but there it is. Not the top grade, but respectable.
John McCain gets a D.
Let me repeat that. John McCain received a D. Yes, his large number of absences affect his grade. But they also affected Barack Obama, yet he got a B.
Also, if you go to the website of the IAVA and download the full document of their 2008 Report Card, you will notice that while they do not take a politician's military service into the grading, they do notate that service by placing a star next to their name.
Of all the Senators listed, only one man has that honorable star next to the dishonor of a D or an F. John McCain.
Way to "walk the walk" there, John.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Morning After Reactions To Sarah Vs. Joe
So all the pundits, including me, are out in force. We all have opinions and many of them are based primarily on what we thought going into the debate rather than on what we thought about it.
Last night, I praised Sarah Palin for doing better than expected. I stand by that. She did do better than expected. However, I find some of the reactions to that performance dismaying.
Fox News said she stopped the bleeding and may have once again saved John McCain's campaign. Newspapers and websites all over are spending the first couple column inches of their stories praising her for, basically, not being a train wreck. But then they are all unanimous in saying that she got her tail kicked in the actual debating department. So why is the first part of the story, well known by every editor to be the most likely part to be read, spent praising the loser?
THIS is equality? This is the performance of a woman who is supposed to shatter the glass ceiling, a claim she made in her RNC acceptance speech? She got her butt kicked! Everybody says so, even the Republican wags. How then are we full of praise for her today? Do you think Elizabeth Dole would have done so poorly? What about Kay Hutchinson?
Or better yet... rewind a few months and watch Hilary Clinton debating Joe Biden. Not only does she not get embarrassed, she stands toe to toe and wins points. THAT'S damaging the glass ceiling. Not pathetic fallback on rehearsed talking points because you can't actually answer the question. Not thinking that we have recalled a Union General from 1862 to take over in Afghanistan. Not long pauses to search her memory of the prep work in Arizona. Not blindly repeating falsehoods that had been blown out of the water by Barack Obama when John McCain tried to use them a week earlier.
I wake up and look at the news organizations and the blogosphere and I am annoyed that we would lower our political standards in this way. When Dan Quayle did this we barbecued him. And rightfully so.
To say that Sarah Palin did so well last night just because she was not a total failure repairs the glass ceiling, it does not damage it. There are many women in national politics who would have done far better debating Joe Biden than Sarah Palin did.
You can wink at me and drop consonants off your words all you want, Sarah. It won't convert me to supporting you because you are "folksy." Yes, you're attractive. But the naughty librarian look loses it's appeal when the person wearing it favors censorship. Yes, you are the first female Republican to be nominated for a national executive office. But I can't say that you are a standard-bearer for women's rights when you favor removing many of the victories already achieved and when your campaign won't even commit to supporting legislation for equal pay.
Sarah Palin showed she's one of us. That's what I keep hearing. Well, guess what? The top two executive jobs in the country are not supposed to be held by people that are "one of us." The people in those jobs are supposed to be exceptional. Not "just plain folks."
The more I write, the angrier I get. Quit cutting her so much slack. Hold her to the same standards you held Hilary to, the ones you held Geraldine Ferraro to and, yes, the ones you hold Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain to as well.
To do anything less does not shatter the glass ceiling, it repairs it.
Last night, I praised Sarah Palin for doing better than expected. I stand by that. She did do better than expected. However, I find some of the reactions to that performance dismaying.
Fox News said she stopped the bleeding and may have once again saved John McCain's campaign. Newspapers and websites all over are spending the first couple column inches of their stories praising her for, basically, not being a train wreck. But then they are all unanimous in saying that she got her tail kicked in the actual debating department. So why is the first part of the story, well known by every editor to be the most likely part to be read, spent praising the loser?
THIS is equality? This is the performance of a woman who is supposed to shatter the glass ceiling, a claim she made in her RNC acceptance speech? She got her butt kicked! Everybody says so, even the Republican wags. How then are we full of praise for her today? Do you think Elizabeth Dole would have done so poorly? What about Kay Hutchinson?
Or better yet... rewind a few months and watch Hilary Clinton debating Joe Biden. Not only does she not get embarrassed, she stands toe to toe and wins points. THAT'S damaging the glass ceiling. Not pathetic fallback on rehearsed talking points because you can't actually answer the question. Not thinking that we have recalled a Union General from 1862 to take over in Afghanistan. Not long pauses to search her memory of the prep work in Arizona. Not blindly repeating falsehoods that had been blown out of the water by Barack Obama when John McCain tried to use them a week earlier.
I wake up and look at the news organizations and the blogosphere and I am annoyed that we would lower our political standards in this way. When Dan Quayle did this we barbecued him. And rightfully so.
To say that Sarah Palin did so well last night just because she was not a total failure repairs the glass ceiling, it does not damage it. There are many women in national politics who would have done far better debating Joe Biden than Sarah Palin did.
You can wink at me and drop consonants off your words all you want, Sarah. It won't convert me to supporting you because you are "folksy." Yes, you're attractive. But the naughty librarian look loses it's appeal when the person wearing it favors censorship. Yes, you are the first female Republican to be nominated for a national executive office. But I can't say that you are a standard-bearer for women's rights when you favor removing many of the victories already achieved and when your campaign won't even commit to supporting legislation for equal pay.
Sarah Palin showed she's one of us. That's what I keep hearing. Well, guess what? The top two executive jobs in the country are not supposed to be held by people that are "one of us." The people in those jobs are supposed to be exceptional. Not "just plain folks."
The more I write, the angrier I get. Quit cutting her so much slack. Hold her to the same standards you held Hilary to, the ones you held Geraldine Ferraro to and, yes, the ones you hold Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain to as well.
To do anything less does not shatter the glass ceiling, it repairs it.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Palin Exceeds Expectations
About a week ago, I wrote that Barack Obama basically won the first Presidential debate by exceeding expectations. Even the most partisan Democrat would have to say that the same was true of Sarah Palin tonight, that she exceeded expectations dramatically. But does that mean she won?
Even Fox News won't say that, although they do reveal their leanings and hardly-surprising-by-now by bias by quoting her NINE times before they do Joe Biden.
But, all Sarah needed to do tonight was not be a complete and total lackwit. And yes, she succeeded in that. If this were a high school debate competition, the scores would go overwhelmingly to Joe Biden. Indeed, a CNN poll conducted in the wake of the debate showed that 97% of America thought Joe Biden was knowledgeable about the issues. That's pretty intense. But another poll said that 84% felt Palin did "better than expected."
So what does it all mean? The jury is still out on that, but in the all-important realm of the undecided voter, it seems to mean a slight victory for Obama. In yet another CNN poll, 18% of undecided voters said tonight had made them decide for Obama, while 10% said they were now committed to McCain.
In my not-so-humble opinion, Sarah scored a victory tonight because she did show that she has dimensions to her that are not evident when Tina Fey plays her on Saturday Night Live. But that does not mean she changed my mind about how incredibly scary she is.
That's gonna take actions, not just words. You betcha.
Even Fox News won't say that, although they do reveal their leanings and hardly-surprising-by-now by bias by quoting her NINE times before they do Joe Biden.
But, all Sarah needed to do tonight was not be a complete and total lackwit. And yes, she succeeded in that. If this were a high school debate competition, the scores would go overwhelmingly to Joe Biden. Indeed, a CNN poll conducted in the wake of the debate showed that 97% of America thought Joe Biden was knowledgeable about the issues. That's pretty intense. But another poll said that 84% felt Palin did "better than expected."
So what does it all mean? The jury is still out on that, but in the all-important realm of the undecided voter, it seems to mean a slight victory for Obama. In yet another CNN poll, 18% of undecided voters said tonight had made them decide for Obama, while 10% said they were now committed to McCain.
In my not-so-humble opinion, Sarah scored a victory tonight because she did show that she has dimensions to her that are not evident when Tina Fey plays her on Saturday Night Live. But that does not mean she changed my mind about how incredibly scary she is.
That's gonna take actions, not just words. You betcha.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
McCain To Suspend Again?
This morning, John McCain hit the morning shows in the wake of new polls which showed definite gains for Senator Obama. Among them was the uber-friendly waters of Fox News, where he did an interview that included a lot of tail-kissing and very questionable interpretations of his actions last week.
McCain answered with a scripted response (I know it was scripted because every time they asked him another question he started over with "I'll do whatever is necessary..." and repeated his talking points. It happened no less than three times.) that basically said that he would do it if it would help.
Help what? Barack Obama? Because that is all the last time accomplished. And how is he gonna suspend his campaign this time? Hey, Jay Leno! Do you have McCain on your schedule this week? Better call Keith Olberman and see if he can sub.
Because the only thing that John McCain suspended last week was appearing on David Letterman's show. His offices were all open. His advisers and subordinates were all out hitting the news shows. He gave an interview to Katie Couric at the time he was supposed to be talking to Dave, then gave a speech the next day, then finally showed up in Washington just barely in time for his photo op at the White House. Then all he did was shut up and look interested for the photographers until the very end, at which point he opened his mouth to present an alternative plan that had already been explored and condemned by Secretary Paulson, Warren Buffet and pretty much every person of financial knowledge willing to state an opinion.
Oh, except for Sen. Phil Gramm, his top financial adviser. The one who called America a nation of whiners. The one whose name is on the legislation that helped get us to this point. Yeah, that's credible. Next on McCain's agenda is apparently a conference with Britney Spears on how to keep his life calm and on track under media scrutiny.
Unless, of course, The campaign suspension really was what some have floated. A feint aimed at getting Barack to flinch and allow the first debate to be re-scheduled for this Thursday. Thereby bumping the Vice-Presidential debate off the schedule. Thereby keeping Sarah Palin from being exposed.
Obviously, that can not be accomplished now. We know the McCain camp is scared about Thursday. We know it because they have been out hitting the media in all shapes and forms over the last three days, attempting to lower expectations for Palin. It's actually a very wise strategy. The more everyone expects her to get her bell rung, the better she looks if she doesn't wilt under pressure. At this point, with how badly she is expected to fail, simply not fainting on stage is going to win her plaudits from the media and cause Fox News to proclaim her the victor.
Are they really so worried that they would suspend the campaign to cancel the debate outright? If so, they are going to disappoint an awful lot of people.
Especially the writers at Saturday Night Live.
McCain answered with a scripted response (I know it was scripted because every time they asked him another question he started over with "I'll do whatever is necessary..." and repeated his talking points. It happened no less than three times.) that basically said that he would do it if it would help.
Help what? Barack Obama? Because that is all the last time accomplished. And how is he gonna suspend his campaign this time? Hey, Jay Leno! Do you have McCain on your schedule this week? Better call Keith Olberman and see if he can sub.
Because the only thing that John McCain suspended last week was appearing on David Letterman's show. His offices were all open. His advisers and subordinates were all out hitting the news shows. He gave an interview to Katie Couric at the time he was supposed to be talking to Dave, then gave a speech the next day, then finally showed up in Washington just barely in time for his photo op at the White House. Then all he did was shut up and look interested for the photographers until the very end, at which point he opened his mouth to present an alternative plan that had already been explored and condemned by Secretary Paulson, Warren Buffet and pretty much every person of financial knowledge willing to state an opinion.
Oh, except for Sen. Phil Gramm, his top financial adviser. The one who called America a nation of whiners. The one whose name is on the legislation that helped get us to this point. Yeah, that's credible. Next on McCain's agenda is apparently a conference with Britney Spears on how to keep his life calm and on track under media scrutiny.
Unless, of course, The campaign suspension really was what some have floated. A feint aimed at getting Barack to flinch and allow the first debate to be re-scheduled for this Thursday. Thereby bumping the Vice-Presidential debate off the schedule. Thereby keeping Sarah Palin from being exposed.
Obviously, that can not be accomplished now. We know the McCain camp is scared about Thursday. We know it because they have been out hitting the media in all shapes and forms over the last three days, attempting to lower expectations for Palin. It's actually a very wise strategy. The more everyone expects her to get her bell rung, the better she looks if she doesn't wilt under pressure. At this point, with how badly she is expected to fail, simply not fainting on stage is going to win her plaudits from the media and cause Fox News to proclaim her the victor.
Are they really so worried that they would suspend the campaign to cancel the debate outright? If so, they are going to disappoint an awful lot of people.
Especially the writers at Saturday Night Live.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate First Reaction: A Draw, Which Is A Win For Obama
I'm sure I'll talk much more about this later.
But my first reaction to tonight's presidential debate was about missed opportunities. I wanted Obama to hammer him. McCain said several things where I saw lies and and misrepresentations and all the same old John McCain things.
And then Barack would just kind of smile and say, "Well, John...That's not quite accurate."
It frustrated me. But then I remembered something. This is the one that McCain was supposed to win hands down. This was his strength. And if McCain was going to change the state of the race, he needed to score big tonight. He didn't.
In most polls, in this immediate and therefore incomplete aftermath, Obama is being said to have won a small victory. The one I have seen remarked upon the most actually has him with a very small margin over a tie, but a larger one over a McCain win. 40% Obama, 38% tie, 22% McCain.
But the things is, this was the foreign policy debate. This is the area where McCain's experience helps the most, this was the debate where the Obama camp worried about getting blown out. This was the one were McCain was expected to swing for the fences and maybe hit a grand slam.
And 78% of those polled thought it was pretty close or an Obama win.
That's significant. And the next debate? Palin vs. Biden. If she can't respond to Katie Couric, how is she gonna handle Joe Biden? Show him her swimsuit video?
A tie is a win, in this case.
But my first reaction to tonight's presidential debate was about missed opportunities. I wanted Obama to hammer him. McCain said several things where I saw lies and and misrepresentations and all the same old John McCain things.
And then Barack would just kind of smile and say, "Well, John...That's not quite accurate."
It frustrated me. But then I remembered something. This is the one that McCain was supposed to win hands down. This was his strength. And if McCain was going to change the state of the race, he needed to score big tonight. He didn't.
In most polls, in this immediate and therefore incomplete aftermath, Obama is being said to have won a small victory. The one I have seen remarked upon the most actually has him with a very small margin over a tie, but a larger one over a McCain win. 40% Obama, 38% tie, 22% McCain.
But the things is, this was the foreign policy debate. This is the area where McCain's experience helps the most, this was the debate where the Obama camp worried about getting blown out. This was the one were McCain was expected to swing for the fences and maybe hit a grand slam.
And 78% of those polled thought it was pretty close or an Obama win.
That's significant. And the next debate? Palin vs. Biden. If she can't respond to Katie Couric, how is she gonna handle Joe Biden? Show him her swimsuit video?
A tie is a win, in this case.
Friday, September 26, 2008
John McCain Will Debate After All
The McCain campaign, after swooping into Washington a full day later then they said they would, after never suspending any aspect of a campaign they said they would and after making once-friendly David Letterman feel like an "ugly date," now says that they will, after all, attend the debate in Mississippi tonight.
Why? Wasn't the original purpose of John McCain "suspending" his campaign to be able to stay in Washington until this financial crisis was resolved? Does this mean it is resolved then?
Let's review. The "agreement in principle" that a bi-partisan committee had come up with before McCain arrived in Washington is floundering at best. House Republicans are still acting as blocking agents. McCain came into town, said very little and then backed a plan completely different from the one that had gendered support across the aisles, a plan that Secretary Paulson said "would not work." The largest bank failure in the history of the country happened overnight.
Nope. Problem definitely not resolved.
So then why is McCain back aboard the Debate train? Simply, really. Because the polls and the voice of the people yelled at him that he needs to be.
This whole thing was a grandstand ploy to try and make John McCain look heroic and responsible while also allowing him to avoid the extra attention of a debate during a time of plummeting polls and giving him additional prep time. This despite the fact that he has known when the debate was for just as long as Obama and that he once again, during that interview with Katie Couric when he was supposed to be on Letterman, has accused Obama of basically being mean to him by not giving him he "ten Town Hall's."
It's transparent. It's ridiculous. It got him ridiculed extensively for two nights by a man reputed to be one of the sharpest wits in America, who used to be enough of a friend that McCain announced his candidacy for President on his show. It made the people of the U.S. actively engage in conversation along the lines of "What the hell is he thinking?"
And it got him caught in one of the silliest accusations yet, when his team called the White House meeting a "shouting match" and tried to blame it on Obama (without ever saying they were trying to blame it on Obama, of course.) Really now, John. We're supposed to believe the guy that kept his cool through everything he has been faced with this year was the one that got into a shouting match, and the guy with the nasty temper who calls his wife things you can't repeat on television was the calm one. Um, your buddy George would say "That dog won't hunt."
Oh, but hey. At least it distracted everyone from noticing what a fool Sarah Plain looked like when Katie Couric asked about Alaska being next door to Russia again.
Why? Wasn't the original purpose of John McCain "suspending" his campaign to be able to stay in Washington until this financial crisis was resolved? Does this mean it is resolved then?
Let's review. The "agreement in principle" that a bi-partisan committee had come up with before McCain arrived in Washington is floundering at best. House Republicans are still acting as blocking agents. McCain came into town, said very little and then backed a plan completely different from the one that had gendered support across the aisles, a plan that Secretary Paulson said "would not work." The largest bank failure in the history of the country happened overnight.
Nope. Problem definitely not resolved.
So then why is McCain back aboard the Debate train? Simply, really. Because the polls and the voice of the people yelled at him that he needs to be.
This whole thing was a grandstand ploy to try and make John McCain look heroic and responsible while also allowing him to avoid the extra attention of a debate during a time of plummeting polls and giving him additional prep time. This despite the fact that he has known when the debate was for just as long as Obama and that he once again, during that interview with Katie Couric when he was supposed to be on Letterman, has accused Obama of basically being mean to him by not giving him he "ten Town Hall's."
It's transparent. It's ridiculous. It got him ridiculed extensively for two nights by a man reputed to be one of the sharpest wits in America, who used to be enough of a friend that McCain announced his candidacy for President on his show. It made the people of the U.S. actively engage in conversation along the lines of "What the hell is he thinking?"
And it got him caught in one of the silliest accusations yet, when his team called the White House meeting a "shouting match" and tried to blame it on Obama (without ever saying they were trying to blame it on Obama, of course.) Really now, John. We're supposed to believe the guy that kept his cool through everything he has been faced with this year was the one that got into a shouting match, and the guy with the nasty temper who calls his wife things you can't repeat on television was the calm one. Um, your buddy George would say "That dog won't hunt."
Oh, but hey. At least it distracted everyone from noticing what a fool Sarah Plain looked like when Katie Couric asked about Alaska being next door to Russia again.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Can You Smell The Desperation?
So, the latest news is that John McCain wants to suspend the presidential campaigns and the debate scheduled for Friday. He expects us to believe this is because of the severity of the economic crisis. He says that his presence is needed in Washington.
What are you going to do now, John? After all, you've shown such a firm grasp of the situation so far. The fundamentals of the economy are strong, right John? All that your presence in Washington is going to do is pull some bright young mind that could be actually working on the problem away from his desk so that he can try to educate you on what's really going on.
You couldn't be bothered to be in Washington for months. Ted Kennedy got back to the senate after a brain operation, defying doctors orders, to vote on a Medicare bill that failed by a single vote. Not Obama's. He was there on July 9th, voting. The missing man was John McCain.
Truth is, John McCain has not been in the senate in five months.
The real truth is this. John McCain's campaign is teetering on the brink of disaster. And that disaster is primarily because of the economy. Of course John wants to suspend the debate and the campaign. For him to go into that atmosphere with Barack Obama on Friday would be like Roman Polansky showing up at the Oscars. Just plain stupid.
Seen last nights ABC News poll? John McCain obviously has. Barack Obama, 52%. John McCain, 43%. Do you think we're stupid, John? Start telling the truth, the birds are sizing up that growing nose for a nest.
The people of the United States deserve to see how you respond in a crisis if you want to be President. Right now, it looks like John McCain is still reading My Pet Goat.
What are you going to do now, John? After all, you've shown such a firm grasp of the situation so far. The fundamentals of the economy are strong, right John? All that your presence in Washington is going to do is pull some bright young mind that could be actually working on the problem away from his desk so that he can try to educate you on what's really going on.
You couldn't be bothered to be in Washington for months. Ted Kennedy got back to the senate after a brain operation, defying doctors orders, to vote on a Medicare bill that failed by a single vote. Not Obama's. He was there on July 9th, voting. The missing man was John McCain.
Truth is, John McCain has not been in the senate in five months.
The real truth is this. John McCain's campaign is teetering on the brink of disaster. And that disaster is primarily because of the economy. Of course John wants to suspend the debate and the campaign. For him to go into that atmosphere with Barack Obama on Friday would be like Roman Polansky showing up at the Oscars. Just plain stupid.
Seen last nights ABC News poll? John McCain obviously has. Barack Obama, 52%. John McCain, 43%. Do you think we're stupid, John? Start telling the truth, the birds are sizing up that growing nose for a nest.
The people of the United States deserve to see how you respond in a crisis if you want to be President. Right now, it looks like John McCain is still reading My Pet Goat.
Friday, September 19, 2008
What's Old Is New Again. Remember The Keating Five.
Investors are losing millions. A lending crisis brought on by deregulation, poor decision making and lobbyists has scared and angered the American people. And a man with hopes to be President is right in the middle of it, with a friend and adviser who is the head of one of the worst offenders.
John McCain, judging by his new ad, wants you to think we are talking about 2008 and his opponent. We're not. We are talking about the Savings and Loan crisis of the late eighties and early nineties. The man who hopes to be President is John McCain and the friend and adviser is Charles Keating.
John McCain wants us to forget. He wants us to give him the reigns so that he can steer us out of trouble. But John McCain is the last person we should trust when it comes to financial scandal. Because John has been there before, and we should be using that phrase his buddy George Bush so memorably screwed up. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
America, don't get fooled again.
John McCain would like you to believe he was exonerated. He was not. What happened was that they couldn't find evidence showing that he had done anything more than intimidate with his presence and with things that were barely true but were, after all, a little bit true and thus hard to claim as being prosecutable falsehoods. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
At the end, John McCain was found to be officially guilty of poor judgment. He was not prosecuted further because he paid for the free flights and vacations given to him by Charles Keating and because he was able to claim that it was his wife's money that was invested with Keating, not his. You know, like how his wife owns all those houses and thus he doesn't know about them.
And he paid the U.S. Treasury $112,000.00 in order to offset the campaign contributions he had received from Keating.
John McCain was at the center of what many called the worst example of Senate corruption since Teapot Dome. John McCain helped Charles Keating attempt, unsuccessfully, to brazen through an investigation and drag out a situation which resulted in Charles Keating's investors, who were primarily older people who had invested for retirement, losing over one hundred eighty million dollars with no hope of recovery.
And although John McCain survived, he was far from blameless. Not in my opinion, not in the opinion of the investigators and not in the opinion of his homestate media. I present to you the words of Tom Fitzpatrick from The Phoenix New Times November 29, 1989.
Link to the original article.
John McCain, judging by his new ad, wants you to think we are talking about 2008 and his opponent. We're not. We are talking about the Savings and Loan crisis of the late eighties and early nineties. The man who hopes to be President is John McCain and the friend and adviser is Charles Keating.
John McCain wants us to forget. He wants us to give him the reigns so that he can steer us out of trouble. But John McCain is the last person we should trust when it comes to financial scandal. Because John has been there before, and we should be using that phrase his buddy George Bush so memorably screwed up. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
America, don't get fooled again.
John McCain would like you to believe he was exonerated. He was not. What happened was that they couldn't find evidence showing that he had done anything more than intimidate with his presence and with things that were barely true but were, after all, a little bit true and thus hard to claim as being prosecutable falsehoods. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
At the end, John McCain was found to be officially guilty of poor judgment. He was not prosecuted further because he paid for the free flights and vacations given to him by Charles Keating and because he was able to claim that it was his wife's money that was invested with Keating, not his. You know, like how his wife owns all those houses and thus he doesn't know about them.
And he paid the U.S. Treasury $112,000.00 in order to offset the campaign contributions he had received from Keating.
John McCain was at the center of what many called the worst example of Senate corruption since Teapot Dome. John McCain helped Charles Keating attempt, unsuccessfully, to brazen through an investigation and drag out a situation which resulted in Charles Keating's investors, who were primarily older people who had invested for retirement, losing over one hundred eighty million dollars with no hope of recovery.
And although John McCain survived, he was far from blameless. Not in my opinion, not in the opinion of the investigators and not in the opinion of his homestate media. I present to you the words of Tom Fitzpatrick from The Phoenix New Times November 29, 1989.
Link to the original article.
"You're John McCain, a fallen hero who wanted to become president so desperately that you sold yourself to Charlie Keating, the wealthy con man who bears such an incredible resemblance to The Joker. (skip ahead)
Since Keating's collapse, you find yourself doing obscene things to save yourself from the Senate Ethics Committee's investigation. As a matter of course, you engage in backbiting behavior that will turn you into an outcast in the Senate if you do survive.(skip)
Those who survive will be the sociopaths who can tell a lie with the most sincere, straight face. You are especially adept at this.(skip)
It was a sobering scene. There you sat with Glenn, both sweating before the cameras, waiting to answer questions: two badly tarnished American icons.
No one forgets that Glenn was the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth. You won't let anyone forget that you were a prisoner of war. But you have played that tune too long. By now your constant reminders about your war record make you seem like a modern version of Arthur Miller's tragic failure Willy Loman.
Clearly, both you and Glenn sold your fame for Charles Keating's money.
It was a Faustian bargain. It was also a bad joke on the rest of us and a disaster for many old people who lost their life's savings to Keating.(skip)
Perhaps you might silence your own conscience about all this someday.
Just keep telling everyone that it was your wife's money invested in that shopping center with Keating and that you knew nothing about it.(skip)
Keep telling them that it wasn't that you were bought off but that Charlie Keating got special help only because he was one of the biggest employers in the state.
Just keep sitting there and staring into the camera and denying that Keating bought you for money and jet plane trips and vacations.
So what if he gave you $112,000? Just keep smiling at the cameras and saying you did nothing wrong.
Maybe the voters will understand you took those tiring trips to Charlie's place in the Bahamas in their behalf. Certainly, they can understand you wanted to take your family along. A senator deserves to travel on private jets, removed from the awful crush of public transportation.
You sought out a master criminal like Keating and became his friend. Now you've discarded him. It shouldn't be surprising that you are now in the process of selling out your senatorial accomplices.
You're John McCain, clearly the guiltiest, most culpable and reprehensible of the Keating Five.
Friday, September 12, 2008
More Evidence of McCain's Ever-Shifting POV
I've said before that I don't care about a politician changing their position on an issue but that it disturbs me greatly when they change positions on ethics or character.
I would define something like beliefs about what experience is and what qualifies a person to be trusted to make wise decisions on national matters to be more of the latter.
The best, and funniest, political commentary is when a politician's own words are used against them. This is one of the reasons that I found the Jon Stewart piece on The Daily Show so funny. The one where he caught Karl Rove dissing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and compared it to Rove's endorsement of Sarah Palin.
I find it less funny when it's the actual Presidential candidate. Especially when he is selling himself as being honest, a maverick and an agent of change.
This is video from a Republican debate in October 2007. John McCain is talking about Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney in this clip. Please remember while watching this that New York City has a population of 8 million. A million people for every 900 that lived in Wasilla while Sarah Palin was mayor. Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and served a full four year term. The Boston metropolitan area, just part of the state, has a population of 4.5 million compared to Alaska's 670,000 and Palin has served for less than half a term.
I would define something like beliefs about what experience is and what qualifies a person to be trusted to make wise decisions on national matters to be more of the latter.
The best, and funniest, political commentary is when a politician's own words are used against them. This is one of the reasons that I found the Jon Stewart piece on The Daily Show so funny. The one where he caught Karl Rove dissing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and compared it to Rove's endorsement of Sarah Palin.
I find it less funny when it's the actual Presidential candidate. Especially when he is selling himself as being honest, a maverick and an agent of change.
This is video from a Republican debate in October 2007. John McCain is talking about Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney in this clip. Please remember while watching this that New York City has a population of 8 million. A million people for every 900 that lived in Wasilla while Sarah Palin was mayor. Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and served a full four year term. The Boston metropolitan area, just part of the state, has a population of 4.5 million compared to Alaska's 670,000 and Palin has served for less than half a term.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A Day To Remember
Seven years since the world stopped moving and stared at their televisions in shock and tears. Seven years since those horrible images and unimaginable bravery. Seven years since the United States got a better understanding of how people in Europe and Israel have felt for so very long.
To this day, I remain in awe of the way that the Police and Fire Departments of New York performed in the face of terror. Of how those brave individuals went up those stairs while everyone else was running down. Of the men and women who rushed to help at the Pentagon. Of the passengers and flight attendants of Flight 93 who realized what was happening and chose to go down fighting, ordinary people without training or a duty to perform, who chose death rather than allow anyone else to be hurt.
To this day, simply murmuring "Let's Roll" brings a flush of emotion to my face and forces me to choke down both tears and overwhelming pride in my fellow Americans.
I will not politicize this day, although the part of me that feels we have strayed from a path that would prevent another attack wants me to do so. But there are no men and women in service to this nation who do not want to prevent that horror from reoccurring. That we may differ on how to achieve that goal is very normal, and let's face it, very American.
But we should also realize that September 11 is not a day when only America grieves. It was called the World Trading Center for a good reason. Nationals of over 90 countries died that day. The attack may have been on America, but it impacted the entire world.
Over 200,000 Germans marched in support of both the United States and all who lost citizens and friends; wives, husbands and children. Le Monde's headline read "We Are All Americans."
Today is not a day about the red stripes in our flag, but about the red blood shed from all over the world. Yes, it is also right and proper that we honor our own and also that we celebrate the spirit of our nation.
Let us never forget any of the victims, regardless of their citizenship. September 11, 2001 was a horrible day for all of the human race.
My thoughts and prayers are with all of us who were hurt that day and most especially with the families and friends of all those whose lives ended that day, whether doing their duty or just their job.
Never Forget.
To this day, I remain in awe of the way that the Police and Fire Departments of New York performed in the face of terror. Of how those brave individuals went up those stairs while everyone else was running down. Of the men and women who rushed to help at the Pentagon. Of the passengers and flight attendants of Flight 93 who realized what was happening and chose to go down fighting, ordinary people without training or a duty to perform, who chose death rather than allow anyone else to be hurt.
To this day, simply murmuring "Let's Roll" brings a flush of emotion to my face and forces me to choke down both tears and overwhelming pride in my fellow Americans.
I will not politicize this day, although the part of me that feels we have strayed from a path that would prevent another attack wants me to do so. But there are no men and women in service to this nation who do not want to prevent that horror from reoccurring. That we may differ on how to achieve that goal is very normal, and let's face it, very American.
But we should also realize that September 11 is not a day when only America grieves. It was called the World Trading Center for a good reason. Nationals of over 90 countries died that day. The attack may have been on America, but it impacted the entire world.
Over 200,000 Germans marched in support of both the United States and all who lost citizens and friends; wives, husbands and children. Le Monde's headline read "We Are All Americans."
Today is not a day about the red stripes in our flag, but about the red blood shed from all over the world. Yes, it is also right and proper that we honor our own and also that we celebrate the spirit of our nation.
Let us never forget any of the victims, regardless of their citizenship. September 11, 2001 was a horrible day for all of the human race.
My thoughts and prayers are with all of us who were hurt that day and most especially with the families and friends of all those whose lives ended that day, whether doing their duty or just their job.
Never Forget.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
McCain's New Ad Bypasses Gutter and Jumps In The Septic Tank
John McCain has released an ad that just goes too far.
Referencing a bill from the Illinois Legislature that set up funding to teach kids what kinds of touching were inappropriate and to get a teacher or parent when someone tried to touch them there, McCain is saying that Barack Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.
John, the reason you didn't want to talk about your honor to Time magazine is obvious now. Many people don't like to talk about the girl they broke up with while the wound is still fresh.
John McCain said he was going to run a different kind of campaign. He pledged truth. Heralded the arrival of the "Straight Talk Express" and spent a lot of time trying to act like a defender of truth, justice and the American Way.
Superman isn't real, John. He is as mythical as your sense of fairplay, your sense of honor and your morality.
Referencing a bill from the Illinois Legislature that set up funding to teach kids what kinds of touching were inappropriate and to get a teacher or parent when someone tried to touch them there, McCain is saying that Barack Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.
John, the reason you didn't want to talk about your honor to Time magazine is obvious now. Many people don't like to talk about the girl they broke up with while the wound is still fresh.
John McCain said he was going to run a different kind of campaign. He pledged truth. Heralded the arrival of the "Straight Talk Express" and spent a lot of time trying to act like a defender of truth, justice and the American Way.
Superman isn't real, John. He is as mythical as your sense of fairplay, your sense of honor and your morality.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Even When Disputing Facts, McCain/Palin Are Deceptive
Recognizing the dangerous effect of the revelations that Sarah Palin once inquired as to a method of how to ban books, the campaign for John McCain/Sarah Palin today is disputing a list of books that has appeared on the internet as being the ones that she tried to ban.
The truth is, no list was ever submitted and no books were ever banned. That is a fact.
But the tack that the campaign is taking is that because no books were ever banned and because the list is false, that means that Palin never had any thoughts about banning books. They say this even while admitting that Palin requested information on HOW to ban books. But they say the request was "rhetorical" and try to pass it off as an isolated and casual conversation.
The truth is that the reason Sarah Palin never banned books is because a woman took a stand. Mary Ellen Emmons told Palin in no uncertain terms that she would not allow books to be banned. And not just on one occasion, as the campaign would have you believe. Emmons says that Palin asked for information on the subject at least three times, including once before she was ever sworn in as mayor. The "single rhetorical question" defense stems from the fact that Palin only asked this question once as a matter of public record.
That should be scary enough... that a mayor of any American city would, on public record, ask a librarian how she would go about banning books. It scares me.
For the record, Sarah Palin DID fire Mary Ellen Emmons. As part of what Plain described as a "loyalty" purge. In fact, she first requested Emmons resignation in October 1996, then actually fired her on Jan. 30, 1997.
She rehired both Emmons and the Chief of Police (fired the same date) on the following day. Emmons then remained in her position for two and a half years.
It amazes me that the Republicans believe this is a defense. Does anyone really believe that the firing of public officials on Jan. 30, 1997 was not all about sending a message? Should people who have done nothing wrong in their work be fired because they are not "loyal" to an official?
I believe that Sarah Plain was prevented from banning books by the stand of a courageous librarian who put her job on the line. I further believe that no one in the United States who has faithfully and properly performed their duties should have to worry about retaining their job and livelihood simply because their new boss doesn't think they are "loyal" to her.
If you do your job the way it is supposed to be done, you should keep it.
If someone asks about the mechanism for banning books three separate times, they are probing, not being rhetorical.
The truth is, no list was ever submitted and no books were ever banned. That is a fact.
But the tack that the campaign is taking is that because no books were ever banned and because the list is false, that means that Palin never had any thoughts about banning books. They say this even while admitting that Palin requested information on HOW to ban books. But they say the request was "rhetorical" and try to pass it off as an isolated and casual conversation.
The truth is that the reason Sarah Palin never banned books is because a woman took a stand. Mary Ellen Emmons told Palin in no uncertain terms that she would not allow books to be banned. And not just on one occasion, as the campaign would have you believe. Emmons says that Palin asked for information on the subject at least three times, including once before she was ever sworn in as mayor. The "single rhetorical question" defense stems from the fact that Palin only asked this question once as a matter of public record.
That should be scary enough... that a mayor of any American city would, on public record, ask a librarian how she would go about banning books. It scares me.
For the record, Sarah Palin DID fire Mary Ellen Emmons. As part of what Plain described as a "loyalty" purge. In fact, she first requested Emmons resignation in October 1996, then actually fired her on Jan. 30, 1997.
She rehired both Emmons and the Chief of Police (fired the same date) on the following day. Emmons then remained in her position for two and a half years.
It amazes me that the Republicans believe this is a defense. Does anyone really believe that the firing of public officials on Jan. 30, 1997 was not all about sending a message? Should people who have done nothing wrong in their work be fired because they are not "loyal" to an official?
I believe that Sarah Plain was prevented from banning books by the stand of a courageous librarian who put her job on the line. I further believe that no one in the United States who has faithfully and properly performed their duties should have to worry about retaining their job and livelihood simply because their new boss doesn't think they are "loyal" to her.
If you do your job the way it is supposed to be done, you should keep it.
If someone asks about the mechanism for banning books three separate times, they are probing, not being rhetorical.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Are Fannie & Freddie "Fundamentally Strong", John?
As dismaying as it may be to see the pattern of Federal bailouts continue, the reason that both Barack Obama and John McCain agree on the actions of the Shrub Administration in the housing market is because we have little choice in the matter unless we are willing to endure a repeat of 1930 to 1935. Even the hint of that kind of an economic downturn is disastrous, and being willing to risk it will not win votes.
The same is true of the Bear-Stearns bailout from earlier this year, and the same will be true if it happens with Detroit, as some feel that it will.
Indeed, Obama is already using the idea of providing Federal assistance to help automakers retool as a part of his campaign. An idea that I support not because I believe in the government helping save a foolish private entity from a financial disaster of it's own making but because it will help bring greater fuel efficiency to the American automobile market quicker than almost any other approach. The result of that will be directly beneficial to all of us, and since I will be in the market for a hybrid vehicle in the next few years (my beloved Pathfinder is starting to enter that "constant investment" part of it's lifecycle) it will be good for me personally.
Remember basic Econ 101... if the supply of a commodity remains constant and the demand for it lessens, price will drop. Of course, that's assuming supply remains constant. Knowing how wonderfully socially conscious and mindful of the public good our beloved oil companies are, I worry about whether it will actually happen. But it is worth trying.
But back to where I was originally headed. The housing crisis is now reaching proportions of magnitude where comparisons to the Great Depression are no longer ridiculous. That is not a good thing, obviously. Some estimates I've seen this weekend were that by years end, nine percent of homes could be in foreclosure.
Let me repeat that. In capital letters. NINE PERCENT. Go down your street and start counting. Every time you reach ten, imagine the next home has a "For Sale, Bank Owned" sign in front of it.
This is an immense danger to the economic well-being of the United States. And since money affects everything, it is also a threat to national security and employment, etc. The government stepped in to save the mortgage underwriting apparatus of our nation because if those feet of clay crumble, the statue that falls will not only shatter but the resulting debris will crush apparently unrelated industries. (Witness the results of the bailout in the Stock Market for evidence that I am not the only one believing this.)
And yet, two of the people running for the nations highest offices show zero understanding of the dangers. G.I. John and Caribou Barbie don't get it, even now.
John McCain has not recanted his statement that the fundamentals of the economy are strong and even Jay Leno couldn't get an actual answer from him related to housing. And the fact that John owns multiple homes that could only be called "investment properties" makes that even more glaring. I realize the McCain wants to avoid any and all discussion of the issue because every mention of it reminds voters of his most serious malaprop comment yet.
But a time of crisis is not a time to avoid questions because you're afraid of speaking up again. This is not grade school, John. You are running for President. You can't afford to sit there in class, refusing to raise your hand and trying to hide behind the pigtails of the little girl sitting in front of you. I don't care if the kids laughed at you last time. Show me some of that courage you supposedly have in such great supply. This is not a time for you to enter your second childhood, or your second shot at second grade.
As for the girl he is hiding behind? Her response was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had gotten "too big and too expensive to the taxpayers" (from a speech in Colorado Springs.) Governor Palin needs someone to tell her that these are private companies and that the implicit backing of the federal government has never before been realized. How can Caribou Barbie be expected to govern if she doesn't even know whether or not a company is part of the government? It's like she was saying that Hummer had become a liability to the Army, not knowing that Hummer was a part of General Motors.
It's scary to me how little actual knowledge either of these candidates show. Yet, there they are in the polls, actually in striking distance of Obama/Biden. Why is that America?
I wish that the average voter would do a little bit of research... something besides watching TV commercials. Here's a hint, sheeple. If the message includes someone saying their name and that they approved it, it's biased!
(a tip of the hat to a comment on Americablog by Asphyxia8, from which I "stole" the phrase Caribou Barbie. It made me smile so much I had to use it.)
The same is true of the Bear-Stearns bailout from earlier this year, and the same will be true if it happens with Detroit, as some feel that it will.
Indeed, Obama is already using the idea of providing Federal assistance to help automakers retool as a part of his campaign. An idea that I support not because I believe in the government helping save a foolish private entity from a financial disaster of it's own making but because it will help bring greater fuel efficiency to the American automobile market quicker than almost any other approach. The result of that will be directly beneficial to all of us, and since I will be in the market for a hybrid vehicle in the next few years (my beloved Pathfinder is starting to enter that "constant investment" part of it's lifecycle) it will be good for me personally.
Remember basic Econ 101... if the supply of a commodity remains constant and the demand for it lessens, price will drop. Of course, that's assuming supply remains constant. Knowing how wonderfully socially conscious and mindful of the public good our beloved oil companies are, I worry about whether it will actually happen. But it is worth trying.
But back to where I was originally headed. The housing crisis is now reaching proportions of magnitude where comparisons to the Great Depression are no longer ridiculous. That is not a good thing, obviously. Some estimates I've seen this weekend were that by years end, nine percent of homes could be in foreclosure.
Let me repeat that. In capital letters. NINE PERCENT. Go down your street and start counting. Every time you reach ten, imagine the next home has a "For Sale, Bank Owned" sign in front of it.
This is an immense danger to the economic well-being of the United States. And since money affects everything, it is also a threat to national security and employment, etc. The government stepped in to save the mortgage underwriting apparatus of our nation because if those feet of clay crumble, the statue that falls will not only shatter but the resulting debris will crush apparently unrelated industries. (Witness the results of the bailout in the Stock Market for evidence that I am not the only one believing this.)
And yet, two of the people running for the nations highest offices show zero understanding of the dangers. G.I. John and Caribou Barbie don't get it, even now.
John McCain has not recanted his statement that the fundamentals of the economy are strong and even Jay Leno couldn't get an actual answer from him related to housing. And the fact that John owns multiple homes that could only be called "investment properties" makes that even more glaring. I realize the McCain wants to avoid any and all discussion of the issue because every mention of it reminds voters of his most serious malaprop comment yet.
But a time of crisis is not a time to avoid questions because you're afraid of speaking up again. This is not grade school, John. You are running for President. You can't afford to sit there in class, refusing to raise your hand and trying to hide behind the pigtails of the little girl sitting in front of you. I don't care if the kids laughed at you last time. Show me some of that courage you supposedly have in such great supply. This is not a time for you to enter your second childhood, or your second shot at second grade.
As for the girl he is hiding behind? Her response was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had gotten "too big and too expensive to the taxpayers" (from a speech in Colorado Springs.) Governor Palin needs someone to tell her that these are private companies and that the implicit backing of the federal government has never before been realized. How can Caribou Barbie be expected to govern if she doesn't even know whether or not a company is part of the government? It's like she was saying that Hummer had become a liability to the Army, not knowing that Hummer was a part of General Motors.
It's scary to me how little actual knowledge either of these candidates show. Yet, there they are in the polls, actually in striking distance of Obama/Biden. Why is that America?
I wish that the average voter would do a little bit of research... something besides watching TV commercials. Here's a hint, sheeple. If the message includes someone saying their name and that they approved it, it's biased!
(a tip of the hat to a comment on Americablog by Asphyxia8, from which I "stole" the phrase Caribou Barbie. It made me smile so much I had to use it.)
Friday, September 05, 2008
Real McCain of Genius
I find myself wanting to embed things more and more often lately... I see clips from Jon Stewart and videos of songs I like that the artists are mad about certain people using...
But I usually resist... because, you know, this blog is supposed to be about original thinking. Not about parroting the stuff other people make up. I leave that to my Republican friends.
But this is just too classic. I love it. From worsethanbush.org, here is Real McCain of Genius, a fun political parody of the beer ads.
But I usually resist... because, you know, this blog is supposed to be about original thinking. Not about parroting the stuff other people make up. I leave that to my Republican friends.
But this is just too classic. I love it. From worsethanbush.org, here is Real McCain of Genius, a fun political parody of the beer ads.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Library-Gate: What Does It Mean?
So now it's all over the internet. Yep, back when she first took office as the mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin used her position to try and get the city librarian to remove certain books from the shelves.
It will be talked about. We will hear pundits spouting off about what happened and why it does or does not matter. And lots of their opinions will be valid and important.
But you know what? None of it matters to me.
Why? Because one thing is clear. Whether or not she was successful, or just curious, or just interested in pursuing an agenda on behalf of her constituents... Saah Palin inquired about what it would take to ban books.
And we are not talking about Mein Kampf or the latest issue of Hustler.
One of the most intense changes brought about by the American experiment was that every publication did not have to pretend to support the government or it's moral positions.
We tend to forget this. That men like Thomas Paine were risking a rope around their neck and a short drop with a sudden stop when they talked about freedom. Sure, there is a difference because no one is talking about hanging Maya Angelou. But the basic principle is the same. No one should fear to speak their mind.
But the librarian in Wasilla took on Sarah Palin. And she is not the librarian there any more. She weathered the first storm. And maybe the second or third. But eventually, she quit fighting. Now, she isn't returning phone calls to the New York Times or the Boston Herald or Time Magazine. Official word is that she is on vacation. What is that? People don't often give up their fifteen minutes of fame. At least, not without a damn good reason.
Sorry, folks. An apology to those of you who want to see this woman Palin as a change, as a chance to move forward. I'm sorry because the more I hear about her past, the more I think that she is a step back rather than a step forward.
I don't want some token in the VP slot. I don't care if she has breasts.
I want someone who is truly progressive. And Sarah Palin is looking like a throwback right now, not a step forward.
I reserve the right to say I was wrong. But I don't think I am.
It will be talked about. We will hear pundits spouting off about what happened and why it does or does not matter. And lots of their opinions will be valid and important.
But you know what? None of it matters to me.
Why? Because one thing is clear. Whether or not she was successful, or just curious, or just interested in pursuing an agenda on behalf of her constituents... Saah Palin inquired about what it would take to ban books.
And we are not talking about Mein Kampf or the latest issue of Hustler.
One of the most intense changes brought about by the American experiment was that every publication did not have to pretend to support the government or it's moral positions.
We tend to forget this. That men like Thomas Paine were risking a rope around their neck and a short drop with a sudden stop when they talked about freedom. Sure, there is a difference because no one is talking about hanging Maya Angelou. But the basic principle is the same. No one should fear to speak their mind.
But the librarian in Wasilla took on Sarah Palin. And she is not the librarian there any more. She weathered the first storm. And maybe the second or third. But eventually, she quit fighting. Now, she isn't returning phone calls to the New York Times or the Boston Herald or Time Magazine. Official word is that she is on vacation. What is that? People don't often give up their fifteen minutes of fame. At least, not without a damn good reason.
Sorry, folks. An apology to those of you who want to see this woman Palin as a change, as a chance to move forward. I'm sorry because the more I hear about her past, the more I think that she is a step back rather than a step forward.
I don't want some token in the VP slot. I don't care if she has breasts.
I want someone who is truly progressive. And Sarah Palin is looking like a throwback right now, not a step forward.
I reserve the right to say I was wrong. But I don't think I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)