Palin the victim of blood libel??

So, I wasn't going to make a post on this, but I guess I've got a few extra things to say. Besides America made the right choice when she was on the ticket. :)

She's in the news again blaming the media for jumping on this. Some people wonder why people insist on picking on her and others wonder why bother. I do believe that if you have run for the highest office or intend to, that you have to answer for certain things. More than that- Palin, unlike some, who go into radio silence after office or unfavorable election, has done her best to stay in the public eye with a book, reality show, social networking, inflammatory remarks on every major news story, etc. She can't claim to be a victim, here. If she'd tried to stay private and busied herself with raising money for charity or something and the press still tracked her, sunk their teeth in and wouldn't let go, I'd say she was a victim. But she's not only dangling the bait, but manufacturing it at pretty high speed- maybe she thinks it will help her presidential bid or maybe her book and TV deals, but she really can't claim she's singled out. She did that all on her own.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027454.php

I've shared this link elsewhere already, but here's the flap. She had a map with crosshairs on races she wanted ot win for the Tea Party or Republicans or whoever. Giffords reprimanded her for the tone. Giffords and others are shot by a possibly mentally unstable man.

"We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights," [Palin staffer Rebecca
Mansour] said.

"It's surveyor's symbols," the interviewer Tammy Bruce suggested. [...]

"Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"

With all of Palin's hunting analogies and love for the 2nd amendment, surveyor's symbols was pretty lame. She clearly didn't murder anyone. Why the backpedaling and defensiveness? She could have acted like a leader and taken the high road. She could have spoken about healing and using the tragedy to examine ourselves and stolen Obama's thunder. Even during the election season I guess she wasn't too fond of hope and change, though.

While she's not responsible for Giffords' murder, an apology for the tone regardless of the fact that a tragic coincidence happened (and everyone else may indeed be participating), would have been the gracious, responsible thing to do.

I agree with the author that she sould have said - "In retrospect, those crosshairs were inappropriate. I regret it."

*****

Here's a friend's link:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/palins-test.html

****

Palin's response to critics of her crosshairs and the violent tone in politics was not to lead and take responsibility, but to respond with more violent rhetoric- blood libel. In classic Palin form, she digs herself deeper. Yikes.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132866209/palin-warns-journalists-pundits-against-blood-libel

She tries (maybe she wasn't trying, but this is what blood libel is; maybe she meant libel) to compare herself to Jews who were accused of killing Christian children for their blood and who were persecuted and killed for the false offense. Instead of standing up and being one of the first to take responsibility for the pervasive violent tone in politics and using it as an opportunity to push for change and civility and lead by example, she chose to try and paint herself the pitiful victim. She didn't miss the opportunity to blame the media, either.

No, I don't believe she's guilty of murder or accessory or any of that. In that sense, there is one (I think) person to blame and the police are looking into that. In another sense, I believe public figures have a responsibility to use their fame for the common good in a tragedy or when they can. They are role models whether they like it or not. People who are, were, or want to be president, especially if you are intent on staying in the public eye, have a greater responsibility. It shocks me that she was on a presidential ticket had any political aspirations at all. Leaders make speeches like Obama did in Arizona. Palin was much more concerned about her image in the same way she was more concerned that people knew the crosshairs were surveyor's marks rather than the greater issue of the appropriateness of the crosshairs-like symbol in the wake of the shooting. As much as I still see her as unfit to lead the country, I wanted to see her take the high road for once. Respond and act as though you know those who accuse you of murder are wrong and acknowledge that most Americans are smart enough to know this, too. No luck, there. She's said her share of offensive and factually incorrect statements. This was pure coincidence and I was waiting for her to be gracious and accept fault (as a leader, not as the only one at fault) and call attention to a tone that needs to be dialed down. All we got was petty argument and defensiveness and zero apology or recognition of a problem. Except with the media. Aren't they always to blame?

Obama's remarks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8256760/Barack-Obama-Tucson-Speech-in-full.html

Now, that's what a leader says.

***

This talks a bit about the contrasting nature of the Palin and Obama ractions and speeches.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/obama-and-palin-a-tale-of-two-speeches/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

****

I've seen this bumper sticker:

How's That Hope & Change Thing Working For You ?

That speech kind of sums it up. America made the right choice. I'll take hope any day over the usual toxic political tone. I hope it will change. :)

Beck's "Restoring Honor"- Just Another Tea Party Rally

Many say it wasn't overtly political. Kind of funny when you see Palin's speaking. That makes it political right there. Beck's got this 9/12 project that is a Tea Party offshoot. That's political. There were very broad and general topics thrown about like honor and patriotism and Christianity, but I didn't hear enough thoughtful Bible study to remotely consider it a religious event in any way, shape or form. And when you consider who the "we" is that was used at the event, you see it means Tea Party or conservative, not Christians.

I was expecting typical Glenn Beck myself. We didn't really see that. But to say it wasn't political isn't honest. It's been criticized (and I agree) as offensive- a bunch of white people gathering on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech to restore honor or take America back or something of that nature. As though Obama was the one who caused us to lose honor. Which would fit with the Glenn Beck model. And who lost America so they have to take it back. Obviously they aren't including Democrats in their all-inclusive apolitical "Christian" honor fest.

On Anderson Cooper, there was a Tea Party blogger and a guy from the left. I forget who he was. He belittled Christians and that didn't sit well with me. He was one who voiced the criticism above and she jumped on him saying sure he'd been to other events, but was he there to verify that every person was white. She seemed to imply that this was a Tea Party event. Hmmm. The Tea Party is very sensitive about stepping up and saying who they are and claiming events. You know- no single person's responsible for the event, everyone just comes out because they care about America and values; they aren't any particular party (even though they probably are conservative)- just Americans. Unity is great, but when you don't in fact all believe the same things, it's a lie or dishonest or just not descriptive. The group that gathered with Beck was probably all unified, but do all Americans believe that way? No way.

The message. Our rights come from a higher power. I agree. The coded message, however, was that to get back to our roots and values we have to elect Tea Party people. Here, I begin to disagree and get suspicious. The typical themes of supporting troops and fighting wars equals patriotism and freedom and values were addressed. The theme was supposedly to turn back to God and the values on which the country was founded. On the surface, a noble thing, but when you consider the source and audience, due diligence is needed. More decoding. Conservatives are (re)claiming the founding fathers and God as their own. I disagree. You must get a law/amendment/court decision banning abortion and gay marriage to be a good Christian and America- forget the other stuff the Bible says. The rub seems to be more of a political one rather than a religious one - do you think government shouldn't or shouldn't help people, gaining political power by singling out a few sins, etc. I don't know that I'll go into that since I have written quite a few posts on this issue.

Much was made of how many people were there. Beck seemed quite proud of himself as he strutted around delivering his "message." I tend to think if this wasn't intended as a political stunt or movement (Tea Party) then it was another publicity stunt because he can't get enough of himself, as if being infamous and having your own show isn't enough.

Maybe, though, the guy is turning over a new leaf. Maybe he will think about God as he yells at people and calls Obama racist and all the other offensive things. If he's trying to clean up the image (Restore Honor to himself?) by putting on this event, then goes back to his old show antics, then the rally really was a joke. Or maybe, he will actually tone himself down and be respectful and start to have meaningful discussions on his show.

Palin, another speaker at the event, certainly seemed to be trying to redeem herself - "Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet and you can't take that away from me." Isn't that stealing honor? Saying a bunch of bigoted, offensive things then borrow you son's honor? That doesn't seem fair.


Some links:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/30/glenn.beck.rally.monday/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082704860.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/28/thousands-expected-glenn-beck-rally-civil-rights-leaders-protest-event/


***

Pictures:

The rally-goers were told not to bring signs. If it was religious and not political, I wonder why this had to be emphasized? Hmmm. They may not have brought signs on sticks, but, boy, did they wear them.

One of them is a Tea Party shirt about “Reclaiming America.” This, I believe, ties to the “Restoring Honor.” Who stole it, praytell? You guessed it! The liberals, socialists, and all those people who won’t forward those emails about how Obama wasn’t born here, Muslims can’t make good Americans, Obama’s a Muslim, Obama’s Hitler, etc. What’s the difference, anyway? Obama's a closet Muslim and Democrats are socialists, which makes Obama a virtual axis of evil, doesn't it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/30/glenn-becks-restoring-hon_2_n_698834.html#s132392


***

The same weekend as the rally, he says he shouldn’t have called Obama a racist. He doesn’t want to retract, but amend… Obama's not a racist, but a Christian who believes in liberation theology (Another attempt to say he's not really Christian).

"He is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology -- which is
oppressor and victim."

I think perhaps we need a few more leaders who understand the victim's point of view, myself (but not morally crippled by it like Israel).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100829/pl_yblog_upshot/glenn-beck-regrets-calling-obama-a-racist


***

Beck smears Obama’s daughter- May 28, 2010

This came probably as Beck was preparing his “return to God” rally. I realize no one’s perfect, but the amount of sludge that spews forth from this guy’s mouth is astounding, which makes the return to God theme more than a little suspect.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025

***

He deliberately people misleads about Obama’s faith. When Obama used the phrase “submitted to His will” Beck attacked and translated that as Islam. What Christian hasn't submitted to the will of God?? Are we all Muslims, then? That’s a complete lie that he’s continuing to propagate and disseminate, showing no regard for truth or accuracy. That’s what Beck’s show is about. Will this change after the rally? Will he apologize for the tone of his show since America is turning back to God on 8/28? Maybe this excludes him.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600150,00.html

***

Glen Beck attacked Obama for so-called “collective salvation” remarks as evidence that he’s not Christian. And that sets him up nicely to be "slammed" as a Muslim- and I say it like that because we in this country have recently shown that we don’t think much of Muslims (Park 51 and the infamous survey done just before that about how many think Obama’s a Muslim). And the right has an even bigger problem with them, the survey shows.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/200/43036/


Some articles called this "collective salvation" a perversion of Christianity. Interesting criticism coming from Beck, a Mormon, a religion with a whole entire book of these such doctrines. Which brings me to another interesting thing. Beck is Mormon, and talks about his faith (in general) a lot and held a rally to show people how Christian he is. Obama doesn't talk about it much in the way Bush and Beck did/do, but talks about community service and getting health care to more people and appears quick to listen and slow to anger, among other things. Given how much and what Beck does say, I wonder why people would think Beck is a Christian and not be sure of Obama.

Now, I took the collective salvation comments to mean that as a Christian, my salvation depends on helping people in need. This is true. My help could be their physical salvation, in a way. Or if you aren’t a Christian (Obama was appealing to a larger, more general audience?), helping others still makes you feel good and so it could work that way as well. I don’t think Obama was arguing for a religious doctrine of collective salvation. Actually, some on the right talk more about this. I have heard some say that if we don’t ban abortion and gay marriage God won’t look favorably on our nation. Sounds like collective salvation to me. Why these two sins and not others? I give up.

***

Beck on Obama and Hitler: He’s not comparing them, but…

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908120017

***

Aha! That Obama-Hitler email I blasted not long ago. It came from a Beck follower. Should have guessed! Same phrase is used- “banana republic dictator.”

Beck suggests what Obama is doing is not "American," likens him to a "wannabe Third World banana republic dictator"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008200016

***

Beck makes a big deal about Obama not taking the oath of office on a Bible, pretended to verify that all other presidents had, and was sorely mistaken as Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and John Quincy Adams didn't use Bibles, either. As the Bible says let your yes be yes and no be no, I (and many Christians) may have to take a pass as well. Or "affirm" rather than swear if that is an option. I mean, what's Beck saying here? That Obama's not Christian? That he's not American? That his oath didn't count? The implication is that he's not Christian or doesn't like the Bible.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/122063/not_only_is_fox%27s_glenn_beck_a_bigot,_he%27s_also_a_lunatic/


***

The rally either was in fact political, or we should see a real change in Beck's show and attitude after this "change point" as Palin not-so-eloquently put it at the rally.

I know that many of us today, we are worried about what we face. Sometimes, our challenges, they just seem insurmountable. But here together, at the crossroads of our history, may this day, may this day be the change point. Look around you. You are not alone. You are Americans!

--Sarah Palin

Not political? In her comments are absolutely political, here. Religious revival? Hardly. She is talking about the economic situation and possibly the fact that Republicans "lost control of the White House" and now feel unrepresented (as I did for 8 long years with W). The message that this Tea Party contingent are the "real America" is 100% a political theme - a negative and false one at that.

Last post on the Great Mosque-oversy?

I hope so. I heard nothing about it on the way in to work today. Maybe it's fizzling already and won't be an election issue after all.


Protest sign: “I learned all I need to know about Islam on 9-11.”

Newt Gingrich: "We can't let the Nazis put up a building next to the Holocaust Museum"

There's also a protest sign talking about Ground Zero being a burial ground, but from what I understand, there's a mall planned or already built right inside the very soil of Ground Zero, not two blocks away. A tacky expression of our consumerism and excess is ok for the burial ground, but a place of worship (several blocks away from and not visible at Ground Zero) reinforcing the first amendment and community center that plans to bring people and faiths together is an insult.

The so-called Christian American reaction is interesting (and bugs me) for two reasons (maybe more):

One is that in the Bible it talks of the doctrine's propensity to cause offense. The way it is often misused - righteous anger replaced with slander and vengeance. When you're sinning, you're wrong and you realize it, this causes shame and maybe defensiveness. When you realize your family is in error and they don't want to change, this causes friction. These are the kinds of offense I think scripture talks about. It is the right thing to do to hold to the truth even though it causes offense. Sometimes, as I felt in this mosque controversy, it seems that Christians feel entitled to say hurtful things and spread lies and put it in the same category as the righteous offense described above. If the response had sparked a real doctrinal discussion rather than - they want to kill us, they're trying to get rid of Christians or Christianity, etc- I'd have still thought that Muslims have the right to practice and build that mosque, but I'd have also been able to be proud of the Christian or American response. When Christians of any kind discuss Islam, it tends to end up that way. I've heard and read very few real discussions and comparisons of teachings - meaning discussion of actual Muslim beliefs rather than an extremist caricature written by a Christian highlighting every verse that can possibly be interpreted negatively. I for one, have more faith in the Bible that it can stand up to a real discussion. Jesus was provacative, but he used truth; he didn't go around making things up or repeating rumors that reflect negatively on the people he reprimanded.

The other reason, finally, is the Ramadan connection.

So, this thought ran through my head last month during the Palin comments on the mosque, but in commenting on all the garbage that was out there, I forgot to add it.

Ramadan started August 11. Palin's comments or tweets (she loves her some Twitter; no room for annoying nuance in 140 characters) were in July; I don't know when in August I started hearing about mosque opposition and protests on TV each morning, but it could have been around then.

Ramadan. The Muslim holy month. The time when they focus on giving to the less fortunate. In fact, if I understand correctly, the fast is to help them identify with the people they are supposed to help. It's a bit ironic or hypocritical that Christians would choose this month to get all up in arms about Muslims. This is when similarities should be quite evident (if we knew anything about Muslims beyond the TV stereotype). They've been praying at that spot for a year with no one saying anything and now they want a mosque. Big deal. And they are focusing on helping the less fortunate now. What on earth is wrong with that? Christians should probably do less complaining about Muslims and more of that. Same goes for me about complaining about those complaining about Muslims. :)

Instead of any mention of this relevant item, we are hearing repeated lies and generalizations about Muslims. They kill their children. They hate us. They want to wipe Christianity off the map. They hate Jews. A mosque near Ground Zero is a monument to terrorists.

Another criticism was it's 9/10 or 9/11 opening. How could they be so insensitive? That is actually the end of the fast this year. It is always a big deal with feasting and visiting family, things not uncommon to the rest of us who have ever observed a holiday. Should we expect them to cancel their holiday and/ or curb their freedoms 9 years out from the national tragedy that also claimed Muslim lives? Who is really being insensitive? Is it non-Muslims or is it Muslims?

I also put this analogy forth on Facebook. I think it's valid. Maybe I'm off the mark. Many say Muslims have the right to build, but they should relocate because it is proving divisive and insensitive to 9/11 victims. Besides painting all Muslims with the same broad brush, this brings to mind this problem. Let's say a black man invades my house and kills a family member. Would I have a negative feeling about all black people? Should I? Would it be acceptable of me to ask all black people to respect my sensitivities and quit plans to build or move within a 2 block or mile or whatever radius of me? Or would I be racist? The example doesn't quite fit in that Muslims died on 9/11, too, but you get the idea.

Soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (however rightly or wrongly depending on your understanding) because of 9/11, like it or not. While I don't think our soldiers in either place are fighting for our freedom, as many say, are they not fighting for the freedom of religion which would allow Muslims to practice in the same way as anyone else with no restrictions?

Maybe this hazing is indeed part of becoming American (see last post). Many an immigrant community has endured this sort of thing, including violence against them. I mean, at one time we tried to scientifically prove that black people were inferior. I have a picture of the textbook illustration depicting this burned in my brain. This kind of thing is absolutely dismissed, considered ignorant and racist today. As it should be. It's hard to believe that it was once mainstream and popular. I hope it will soon be the same with the crazy stuff said of Muslims.

Obama and THE Mosque

Here is the first time I commented on this mosque debate:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/07/she-could-have-been-our-vp.html


I thought Palin was a lone wolf crazy lady on yet another issue. Turns out, 80% of America is with her this time. Doesn't make her right, though.


And now the President weighs in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/14/barack-obama-ground-zero-mosque

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama

Muslims have the right to build it. But he's not commenting on the wisdom of it. So, is that him saying that it isn't wise? Or is he really saying that it's not his business to comment on the wisdom. I hope it's the latter. Because really, what's the big deal? Whose business is it besides the zoning committee in that area of NY? Who cares if there is a giant catholic cathedral or a mosque or a religious buffet squarely on top of Ground Zero (let alone however many miles from it)??

I just don't understand the opposition: "It stabs hearts." "It's an insult to those who died on 9/11." "It's pouring salt in our wounds." "It's a slap in the face."

Isn't this America? The place people flee to when they want religious freedom or freedom of expression? Didn't Muslims also die on 9/11? Why are we still lumping together extremists with a political agenda who were hanging out in a bar and not acting too Muslim (who rammed planes into buildings) with the majority of normal Muslims who generally have the same basic values as Christians and Jews?

And what about the other mosques near ground zero? Why are they no big deal? They don't have community centers. Is that the issue? If this one is such an insult, will we insist that these others be closed? Should Muslims be banned from Ground Zero, NY, the northeast, public office, the US?

When we talk about having a few already in Manhattan, so there should be no problem with adding one more, the counterargument is why one more? Why can't they go to existing mosques. I guess that would be an ok argument if you were prepared to apply it to Christianity and Judaism as well... If we want our rights/ freedoms/ privileges preserved, we're going to have to protect those of others. Or cease being a democracy and haven for free expression and freedom of religion. It's a decision one has to make.

Prevailing wisdom says that we have to attack "them" there before they attack us here and "they" attacked because they are jealous of our freedom. This is backwards. They are not going to be able to walk in and take our freedom; that is something we are free to give up. I have been arguing since 9/11 that those who are opposed to mosques or Muslims are actually doing the terrorists' bidding. That is what they (terrorists, not Muslims) want. They want us to hate them and attack, so that they will be justified in what they do. The best thing for us to do is to stick even more firmly to American values and allow Muslims the freedom to worship anywhere just like anyone else. The more we allow hate and ignorance to dictate our policies against Muslims here and abroad, the more freedom we give up. We become less American and more like those nations which inspire such hatred in these discussions. Today, we may eliminate freedoms for Muslims. That may be fine for you as a Christian or Jew- for now- but watch out. You may be next. In nations that are in the business of limiting freedoms, you have to worry about such things.

Stats are being reported as 75-80% of Americans oppose it and 25% support it or something like that. I was hoping most would say it's the residents' and zoning boards' business, not say- "Muslims. Eeew."


Despite all the opposition, one family member of a 9/11 victim had this to say, though:

The mosque is "in many ways ... a fitting tribute," said Colleen Kelly of the Bronx, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr. in the attacks. "This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience," said Kelly, who is Catholic. "This is what moderate Islam is all about."

A point was brought up on NPR's Talk of the Nation that everyone (or at least many groups) has been an outsider in this country at one time or another and it is part of the awareness and becoming American. I thought that was an interesting idea.

Another point on the same program, TOTN, was that more mosques mean more discussion among Muslims about the "radical" and "moderate" interpretations and less radicalization rather than more, so allowing mosques is probably more beneficial than banning them. There was an example of an imam in Virginia being kicked out as a result of this process and discussion. Food for thought.


And some satire on this from Jon Stewart if you like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/stewart-rips-fox-news-for_1_n_684467.html


And CNN's Fareed Zakaria returned his award from the ADL over this. Go Zakaria! It's easy to see why- it was a First Amendment Freedoms Prize- and you can guess the ADL's stance on this issue.

She could have been our VP?!

A heartbeat away from a McCain presidency.

That's just plain scary.

Bush 42, but a looser cannon. Same fun version of English, though. The entertainment would not have been worth the rest of what we would have received. At least W realized to some extent that there are Muslims and Arabs in America and that he represents them, too. A big step, no doubt. Palin just sounds like one of those bad email forwards ("What We All Need To Be Aware of Concerning the Muslim Religion," "Why Muslims Can't Be Good Americans," you get the idea...).

It is said that all publicity is good publicity, but when we're talking presidential aspirations, that may not be true. A strange howl knocked Howard Dean out. Palin's crazy Tweets and Tea Party associations should pretty well sink her. If she wants to be president, she should go under the radar, delete her Twitter and FB accounts and work for a (poverty, education, etc) nonprofit and travel abroad for the next few years. If she wants to sell another book, she should keep Tweeting and take it up a notch! I'm guessing she'd choose the latter.

"Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims pls refudiate"

It's not a mosque, it's actually a community center.

Heartland??? As in Alaska? As in the place where we hate foreigners and non-Christians?

How does one refute or "refudiate" a mosque (that's really a community center)? If there was an inflammatory statement coming out of a mosque, one could use "mosque" in place of the statement, but she's indeed talking about a structure.

And two more annoying things: the pls/plz abbreviation and continually demanding "peaceful Muslims" constantly condemn this or that in order to be freed from the terrorist label. Some abbreviations I don't mind in texting. Plz is one I really, for whatever reason, don't want to see anywhere. In another observation of the week, an email is not a text message, people (!!). Emails generally let you type more than 140 characters, so please don't use plz.

The "peaceful Muslims" comment. What kind of garbage is this? Are non-Muslim Americans required to prove how peaceful they are in order to be considered acceptable or not a terrorist? No. While I can understand on some level why some think this way, it is ignorant and unacceptable. We only see Muslims depicted (sparsely) in the news when they are committing an unthinkable crime. The onus, then, is not on Muslims to re-educate people who think something horrible and false about them. Good for them if they choose to, they are doing a public service. People watching the news should ask things like: How many Muslims are in the world or country? How many are committing crimes versus how many are just doing as I do? Have I met or conversed with a Muslim about Islam or anything at all? What do we have in common? Do I spend too much time on answeringislam or jihadwatch without checking facts with actual Muslims or Arabs?

I am so sick of people asking where are the peaceful Muslims who denounce terrorism. Besides the fact that these people need to hop on over to the library and learn to use a search engine, it is not Muslims' or Arabs' responsibility to "refudiate" (sorry, couldn't help myself) every lie and stereotype about them. Passing the buck didn't work for Eve (Uhh...the serpent said we'd be cool...) and it won't work here. We bear most of the responsibility on this one. We've got to check the "facts" instead of just sitting in front of the TV or computer voraciously gulping everything down without chewing on it a bit, especially when it involves sweeping generalizations.


Her revised edition:

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts," Palin wrote in a Twitter post Sunday. "Pls reject it in interest of healing."

Healing is kind of the point of the community center, but she's not really one to let facts get in the way of some really great fiction. Banning Muslims from here of there should be the thing stabbing your heart. It's hardly American and segregation is definitely not in the interest of healing.

Maybe Sarah Palin's soon to be released little book of "Clever Sayings That Rock!" will include George Santayana's "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I wonder what kinds of things are in her books, but not really enough to read them at this point... :)

Rashid Khalidi (you know, Obama's best friend, the second terrorist professor?)

Remember that professor McCain/Palin was trying (really hard and without success on both counts) to paint as another terrorist and political ally of Obama’s?

"It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years," Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html


Radical?? I guess that’s the new substitute for calling someone anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel.


Anyway, he was on the Diane Rehm Show March 5 at 11am.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/03/05.php

On the page for the link I’m giving, you can listen to the segment and see just how radical he is? Or perhaps Palin fits the radical label better and so from her perspective, Khalidi is radical? Or perhaps anyone is radical who expresses a minority opinion, no matter how commonsense- the US shouldn’t torture, the US should have gathered more info before flattening Iraq, the US should oppose war crimes on both sides of the Israeli Palestinian conflict?


Radical is “marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional”, so perhaps that characterization is correct, but when used in combination with the Ayers allusion (or delusion??) and the PLO, which was named a terrorist organization in 2004, she was giving it a bad connotation. Or trying really, really hard to do so.


I’ve got to say that the Ayres and Khalidi digs were a pretty far stretch. She introduced the Khalidi thing in the last week of the campaign when the Ayres thing had all but fizzled out. It looked pretty sad then, but take a listen to Khalidi speaking for himself and it looks even worse. You will see someone who has an understanding of world affairs that far supercedes hers. Obama has his flaws and limitations, but I think we averted disaster in that last election. Speaking of flaws—what about that Limbaugh garbage? Obama needs to stop taking Emanuel’s advice! Giving Limbaugh that much attention was a big mistake (it just boosted his already supersized ego); he’s got a big mouth, but he’s no spokesman.


Anyway, Khalidi’s got a new book, Sowing Crisis in the Middle East, and it touches on things I’ve thought about before as well as some other interesting ideas.


He apparently addresses my thoughts about terrorism being the new communism, as in it being an exaggerated fear, boogeyman, and something that is thrown about without much care in tough political contests or discussions.


He also talks about Cold War remnants and how that carries over to the current situation in the Middle East (and how Bush picked a lot of Cold War “experts”). The US and Israel were on one side and Arabs sided with the Soviet Union on the other. He thinks that this is how Arab nationalism got (wrongly) associated with communism and hence was opposed by the US and its allies on principle.


I don’t know if he talks about this in his book, but his interview led me to think that this could very well be a major reason for our unconditional support for Israel, despite its failure to uphold our values, and reluctance to support Palestinians gaining statehood and rights in general. I mean, think about how much and how carelessly in recent times the communism accusation is still thrown about- a good example would be the recent presidential campaign in 2008. It was used when people disagreed, to describe the run of the mill progressive tax, used to describe Obama, etc. The Cold War is very much alive in American minds, though it has been over for some time in reality.


The reasons I have usually given for our unconditional support for Israel despite the evidence for its human rights violations, war crimes, lack of respect for human life in general, apartheid tendencies, etc are:

*Christian Zionism/religious beliefs/ misunderstanding of Bible prophecy and the Old Testament in general

*Jewish Zionism

*Israel lobby (buying politicians, politicians loving power and money more than justice and freedom)

*Islamophobia and fear of a culture we aren’t familiar with


The Cold War should definitely join the ranks, here. None of these are justifiable for depriving Palestinians the right to freedom, statehood, self-defense, human rights, food, shelter and the like, but I definitely see it as a reason for our position.

Obama's a terrorist, this time for real guys

Ok. They've got a real live Arab (and the PLO's got a whole slew of 'em) to link Obama to, so Obama MUST be a terrorist...right? Maybe this is the plural "terrorists" the campaign was thinking of when they gave her the Ayres material.

As Palin says, let's go to the videotape!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm-8d2gRvJM

...even today we’re learnin’ new things still about our opponent...

"It’s not negative campaigning and it’s not mean spirited to call someone out on their record, their plans, or their associations so we’re gonna do it!"

She makes it sound like she's going to do all three, here, but this looks like another simple, and rather sloppy "guilt" (manufactured guilt, at that) by association to me. What did this have to do with his record or plans? What's she implying? She calls Khalidi a radical and wants to talk about Obama's record and plans??

This Rashid Khalidi thing was described as the “latest item”, but I think this has been discussed before... Yes, it has. This is only the latest item in the McCain-Palin fishing expedition. You know, if you judge it based on body language- winking, knowing looks, smug smiles, pride, etc- you'd think McCain's really found something every time one of these "items" is unleashed (rehashed?), but when you look at the substance, it turns to dust and blows away; there's nothing there.

She went on to describe one of a number of Obama's "interesting assortment of friends".

She claimed Khalidi is another "radical professor from the neighborhood."

He's a political ally of Obama and former spokesman for the PLO, she also said. No doubt the mention of Palestinians was supposed to conjure up images of kids with AK47s, suicide bombings and move people to boo.

"The twist here is that there’s a videotape of a party for Mr. Khalidi and in that Barack Obama he, being there at the videotape for a pa- in a- a party in 2003, Barack was there, and we know that very derogatory things were said about Israel and about American support for that nation."

Obama was there...with Khalidi...I think I get it...

"Israel was described as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of victim."
This line was no doubt the guilt she was trying to associate with Obama. Obama couldn't have been elected to the Senate without being fanatically pro-Israel (there are only a couple of exceptions) and he has proven it, so she's wong, there. Ascribing guilt to both sides is fair and truthful, so her Israel the perpetual victim claim is also wrong. I'd go farther in that Israel uses dispoportionate force on Palestinians, uses collective punishment that could amount to terrorism of the innocent population, and is engaging in illegal activities, including but not limited to settlement building and extrajudicial assassinations. We should be sanctioning them, not rewarding them with money and unconditional support of all kinds.

And, Ms Palin, criticism is not anti-Semitism. I'm not anti-Semitic because I disagree with the government of Israel and neither are Israelis who disagree with their government. No doubt she was trying to make Obama look like he has the same views as Khalidi, label these views as anti-Semitic and then make Obama look anti-Semitic. She's going to have a hard time making him look like he has the same views as Khalidi. On this issue, he and almost everyone in Congress are far extreme right, much like the Israeli government. Criticizing Israel would seem radical left only because Americans are so far right on the issue, but really it would make us more toward center right.

Palin wants to know Obama’s response to these things and is distressed that the LA Times won’t release this videotape. That's all well and good to try and make yourself look like a candidate who's for free press and transparency,but I can understand not releasing it. It makes sense to me based on the reaction of the McCain-Palin supporters to just Obama (off with his head, terrorist, kill him, he’s and Arab so can’t trust him, booing Khalidi, etc) that releasing that footage would put all at the party at risk for totally unjustified (and criminal) bodily harm.

This line cracked me up:
"It must be nice for a candidate to have a major news organization looking after his interests like that and maybe other politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own."

Doesn't the GOP have an entire network called Fox News?? Must be nice indeed. She speaks from experience at least on that issue!


Before demonizing Khalidi and all Arabs, perhaps she should ask McCain about his associations:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."


But, maybe he gets a pass on this one for some unknown reason, like the I married my mistress but somehow it's irrelevant one he got by "values voters."

Breaking news: Under Obama, we won't be free says Palin

"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record... Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us. And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us. Now, they do this in other countries where the people are not free. Let us fight for what is right. John McCain and I, we will put our trust in you."

from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/25/palin-obamas-tax-plans-co_n_137851.html

This is the latest and farthest stretch for these two yet. Crazy stuff. I can't believe she said that! Maybe she misinterpreted Joe the Plumber's socialism reference? Wow! Your property won't belong to you, it'll belong to everyone?! Under Obama, some might start to think the government is supposed to take care of us and make decisions for us like in countries where people aren't free. Hmmm. Wonder what the implication is, here? I suppose she didn't actually say we wouldn't be free under Obama, but the line is so fine you can barely see it.

Not to mention, they're still using several debunked myths- Obama's plan means higher taxes for the average person, he voted 90+ times for higher taxes. And they jump all over Obama for saying 95% of people will get a tax cut when it is really 80-something percent.

What are they thinking? Since we didn't really succeed in making the terrorist thing stick (despite the ever so inventive rumor about him being Muslim and a radical, etc) maybe with the help of Joe/Sam, the almost plumber from Alaska who happens to be in Ohio, we can paint him as a socialist, communist, or anything along those lines before the week is up.

The article made a good point about the tax code and the 1990's- if that was a communist era, then look out, if not, she's blowin' smoke, golly gee gosh darn it.

Diva Palin and who did you say's cutting the net?

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," the McCain source said. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."

Ouch. That was pretty harsh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081025/pl_afp/usvotemccainpalin_081025214702
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/25/palin-diva/

Interesting how she keeps trying to distinguish herself from McCain; in a way that reminds me of how McCain keeps trying treat his Bush connection. It’s like she’s already moved past the campaign and election day and onto advancing her own political career and possible bid for presidential nominee. She says her focus is on this race, but I think we’ll see her try for the top of the ticket for a number of reasons, including the fact that she didn't really answer one way or the other. Though, if she doesn’t serve as VP, she’s pretty well proven that she’s far from the best man/woman for the job.

Maybe she’s mad at how her coming out party resulted in all those bad interviews and bad choices of Bush handlers. Just another example of bad judgment by McCain. I don’t trust those he surrounds himself with. Bush proved that can be disasterous for the country and your legacy, so McCain should have learned from that.

***

"But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the net."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7931556

Palin claims Obama already has written his inaugural address.

First, not quite- a general one was written for the nominee by a former White House chief of staff. Similar to her own speech she gave at the RNC, wouldn’t she agree?
Second, McCain said something that might qualify as cutting the net recently.

In Obama’s defense, I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea for both candidates to start working on an acceptance, concession, and inaugural speech now. I’d call it a good idea rather than presumptuous. He’s making a closing argument on Monday. You do that just before the jury deliberates and makes the decision, so it doesn’t really look like he’s acting as though he’s already won.

McCain’s predicting a come from behind victory...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14951.html
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mccain-predicts-victory-at-rockefeller-rally/70766/
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3802

In all honesty, I think McCain was saying he can guarantee a close race, which is kind of obvious. He, like all political candidates have to assure supporters he will win. But, I do think it was pretty crazy for Palin to accuse Obama of cutting the net in light of McCain’s prediction that made headlines and the fact that upon closer inspection, neither is actually cutting the net just yet.

The second debate

The second debate was a little disappointing in that I heard way too many misrepresentations and on McCain’s side at least, they were ones that had already been refuted. There was question dodging by both (perhaps that was the format, which I hated) and the repetition of portions of their previous speeches. I guess they get points for having a green debate with all the recycling going on. However, it kind of made this one a snoozefest.

McCain definitely excelled in this format, in a way. He sounded more passionate than in a speech. It was hard to say who did better on the questions since I didn’t really like the questions and neither did that great on substance. Obama perhaps had a more organized response, but perhaps that is due to the fact that McCain repeated already debunked misrepresentations and I have a growing doubt about his capability the more I look at his record and what he says. I was underwhelmed after this second debate overall.

The most entertaining was the competition for the best analogy or cut down. Nailing Jello to a wall and a wheel falling off the straight talk express (the implication being a not so straight path) were pretty funny and descriptive. Can we expect “your mama” jokes at the third debate?

I kind of held my breath and was a bit embarrassed for McCain when he referred to Obama as "that one." Yikes. And people thought Obama's pig in lipstick comment was a poor choice of words. Was he trying to refer to Obama's age/experience or was it a racial slur, like calling him "boy"? I think it was harmless myself, if a poor choice of words, but if you thought the pig in lipstick comment was sexist, then you should be very worried about this (one ;) ).

I don’t like the Town Hall style at all. It is interesting to see how the candidates interact with the public, but I thought the questions weren’t very good. But Brokaw’s weren’t much better. He was way too concerned with the clock than asking quality questions and getting at different angles. Had they had Bill Moyers or Amy Goodman, I bet we’d have had some really interesting stuff. The CPD probably isn’t fans of those two, especially the latter, though. I thought Ifill did a much better job than Brokaw and I have high hopes for Schiffer.

In a way, though, I think one debate probably is enough. McCain’s desire for 10 or 15 town Hall meetings is a bit crazy. The networks wouldn’t go for that. On the other hand, it would be nice to hear them respond to the smaller weekly changes in the campaign, like the recent Ayres and Keating 5 ads, in addition to the things that matter. While this is basically a distraction touching on or reaching for the judgment issue, it might be interesting to hear them talk to each other about the attacks and responses and how it relates to the kind of clean campaign each no doubt said they wanted to run. I wonder if this kind of accountability- knowing they’d have to face each other and the public weekly and rather directly would make for a cleaner or more vicious campaign on both sides?

Let the fact checking begin! There are probably a lot of duplicates...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/check-point-the-second-presidential-debate/

***
Palin was active yesterday as well. She's latched in barracuda fashion onto the misleading and well-debunked and explained "Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times" line (as did McCain yesterday), much like she did the oft-repeated, equally misleading achievement of saying "thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere." Perhaps that's the barracuda reference- she'll hang onto the claim even way after it's been debunked...much like Bush and Cheney did.

Amen to this! Palin needs to be careful in attacking Obama's truthfulness, for sure.
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20081007/NEWS/810070255

Also about Palin in Florida:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/06/in_fla_palin_goes_for_the_roug.html
This kind of talk- "terrorist" and "kill him" should be condemned by the campaign, not given tacit support. I hope they make a statement soon. Or is this what they are trying to achieve? A Bush-style, fear-mongering victory.

I guess I'm not much of a Palin fan.

Or an Elisabeth Hasselbeck fan for that matter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/elisabeth-hasselback-push_n_132239.html?page=4


A candid quote about the negative campaigning:

"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist told the Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

from:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/05/2008-10-05_insults_fly_as_barack_obama__john_mccain.html

The latest set of attack ads

This was in the previous post, but I thought I'd make a new one out of it.

McCain is using Palin to bring up the Ayers so-called link to Obama. (I mean using Palin to necro this desperate fishing expedition-reminiscent of the Iraq/9-11 link?? Troopergate anyone?? There’s more substantial mud there.) I'd say that's reaching in the link department as well as the relevance to current affairs. So, I heard Obama has launched a Keating five (S&L) ad in response. I guess we have run out of current affairs to talk about?? What's up, guys? Is the economy and the bailout old news already?

McCain may have thought using Palin to bring up Ayers was ingenius, but if you're going to be talking about dirt on your hands, neither can really talk. Palin's got this Troopergate thing hanging over her head and in the way of associations, there's really no comparison between Ayers and some of the people McCain is consulting for his policy and campaign. Phil Gramm and John Bolton stick out ion my mind. These aren't mere acquaintances; these people are giving him advice on important issues affecting us now, some of which McCain may not know too much about or have much input in.

Palin's "palling around with terrorists" claim is far from true if she is meaning to link Obama with Ayers. The bombings Ayers' groups took credit for were in the 60s and 70s. Once Ayers got his degrees, and began working for education reform in Chicago, I couldn't find anything linking him to terrorist actions. There doesn't seem to be a friendship, but who cares if there were? The guy has abandoned the abhorrent tactics of his past and has done some really good things for education. Obama's "link" is working with him (not even directly) on school reform and such things, not as a member of a terrorist group. So to say that Obama doesn't see America the way evereyone else does as evidenced by his limited contact with Ayers is to try and cast Ayers' past beliefs, actions, etc on the present Obama, which is totally false and a really lame attempt at guilt by association.

McCain appears to be changing up his game again. Like when he changed to a theme of change. This time, he's going from the experience, straight talk express, war hero angle (pretty solid and clean) to attacking Obama for being too risky and too liberal and other more suspect themes like his truthfulness and associations (however long ago or loose they may be). There's an ad about his "voting 94 times to increase taxes" and how he's not truthful about taxes. This has been fact checked left and right and found to be not what it appears, and yet McCain's still hammering away with it!

On being too risky... McCain fits the bill far better than Obama. He doesn't inspire confidence in his own abilities to lead by his reaction to the financial "crisis" most recently, his myriad positions on the economy and deregulation (said he didn't know much about it, spent much time in favor of deregulation before belatedly putting his name on the Fannie Mae regulation bill), his foreign policy positions (antagonistic toward Russia, McCain following the Bush script on Iraq, talking diplomacy but being a hawk, etc). For all his experience, his positions aren't solid and stable, they are erratic. The campaign tactic of repeating well-debunked misleading accusations against Obama (or debunked distorted accomplishments of McCain/Palin) reminds me of the Bush tactic of repeating things hoping Americans will believe it if they hear it enough. I hate that. It was infuriating to hear people I thought had common sense (in other things, like Bible) repeat the Bush lines in support of the Iraq invasion. McCain can repeat misleading, fact checked assertions all he wants, but when it comes down to actions, I don't think McCain has the judgment to be President. It would be one thing if he had made some mistakes and learned from them, but he still seems to be all over the place at the current time.

I guess it's good news for Obama that McCain's best attack material is tangential and pretty weak at best.


McCain campaign quote:

"We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here,"

So far attempts at trying to paint Obama as a sexist, tax raising, reckless, raging liberal who is not ready to lead have fallen pretty flat.

As with the lipstick diversion, lets get back to the issues!

More detail here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738_pf.html

Edit 10/14/08: I saw an ad just this week after this so called story broke (or broke again) and was debunked about how Obama works with terrorists when convenient. Whaaa? Is anyone really buying that? (I guess a lot actually do buy this stuff. I heard a woman get up and talk about how she couldn't trust Obama because he's an Arab or something like that-McCain had to take the mic and correct her-sort of.) Blind ambition and bad judgment? McCain's getting his economic advice from Mr. Enron. What does that say about his ethics and judgment?

VP debate

First, a few notes:
1. Go to http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/
I have often wondered about third parties and why a society that prides itself on extensive freedoms would limit itself to two parties. Also, look at the role of corporate America. Interesting stuff. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I found this enlightening.

2. The bailout bill. This has been touted as democracy at work and working together and I’d add business as usual. This thing is massively expensive and provides no real plan for resolving anything or how to use the money and is loaded with earmarks engineered to bribe certain Congress people to vote yes. McCain had a chance to take a different stand and act on his anti-earmark rhetoric, but I guess his campaign couldn’t risk a possible hit he may have taken for opposing it at all for any reason. So much for standing up when it’s not popular and putting country first. Or is voting yes to the imperfect bill putting country first? I love how this is such an emergency that Congress can’t be bothered with things like addressing the cause of the problem and putting some reigns and instruction on how the money is used, but it’s obviously not so serious that they didn’t have time to put in some nice fat earmarks.

***
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008b_p.html

I made some notes during the VP debate, but didn't have time to put them here til now. Here's a few of them. I hope to finish it up before the next Presidential debate- which doesn't give me much time! And again, I'm posting old news!

SNL said it best- “…and the winner is- whoever you already liked!”

Seems like Palin exceeded many people’s expectations. I think she may have pumped the right back up because they were looking for something to be pumped about. There were no awkward silences or glaringly obvious gaffes, as in the interviews, but I didn’t see much to get all excited about. Most of the time when I listened to her answers, I couldn’t remember what the question was because she wasn’t on topic. Sometimes it seemed like she was giving a speech and running down the talking points, instead of responding to questions. Palin went back to tax cuts once and energy several times instead of answering the questions. And then, after going back to energy several times, the next question was about… energy! Unbelievable. And when she said the piece about the fact that she may not answer the question the way you like (trying to give the impression that she‘s taking a stand and doing what‘s right in the face of opposition), etc- wow- I was thinking it would be nice if you’d just answer the question at hand! She probably did better in this format because there really wasn’t time or opportunity for anyone to call her out on not answering questions in most cases, unlike when talking to a pesky gotcha journalist.

Palin managed to fit in every nickname and slogan of the entire campaign into that 90 mintues. Joe six pack, hockey mom, maverick, country first, change is coming, drill baby drill. Convenient and folksy, maybe, but answers they are not. Didn’t hear anything about lipstick… ☺

What was up with the winking? People didn’t like Gore’s sighs in that debate, but the winking was almost as bad. And kissing at the audience—maybe she thought she was at a campaign stop talking to supporters. The shout out to the third grade class was nice, but I thought it was more of a stall tactic or a subtle effort to prove her link to the general public rather than Washington.

Biden reigned himself in pretty well. I don’t think he came off as sexist or too harsh. Was he perceived as connected or passionate enough? I don’t know. Did anyone else giggle when he kept saying “…George Bush’s” a dozen time sin a row? Maybe it’s sleep deprivation or maybe it’s a word sounding funny if you say it enough times…

Palin in her first response referred to the fact that McCain put politics aside and suspended the campaign (can you really say that, even still??) and put country first. I’d downplay that since it seemed kind of overdramatic, not necessary and perhaps the wrong thing to do (why suspend the campaign in a televised statement no less, unless to make it political, rather than just go up to Washington and do your business, if that’s your real intent?). That, among other things, makes him seem a bit erratic and calls into question his judgment.

Biden mentioned McCain and deregulation of health care, then on Wall Street and in both instances Ifill asked Palin if she’d like to respond to the “charges” against McCain and both times Palin said she wanted to talk about taxes. She did add a sentence about McCain pushing for regulations, but that hardly refuted the charges or squared the deregulation champ with his alleged push for regulation.

There was a question about bankruptcy and Palin was asked if she’d support McCain’s position. She said simply “yes, I’d support it”. That’s it. Then, she goes on talking about McCain’s bipartisan cooperation, how he put politics aside and the campaign aside to deal with the mortgage crisis. I’m sorry, but the way he handled the crisis was far from apolitical. I’d like to think he was well-intentioned, but it smacks of politics and Bush’s melodrama.

Biden did answer the debt strapped homeowner question and had a several point plan to discuss. Ifill followed up with Palin by saying John McCain doesn’t support that and asked if that was true. Plain simply answers “that’s not so.” That’s it. Then, she goes on to talk about energy with zero transition from the topic at hand. The bothersome questions were clearly getting in the way of her speech at that point.

There was a question about what is true and false about climate change. Palin dismissed the causes and focused on cleaning up the planet. Biden said what I was thinking when I heard Palin say that. You need to know the causes to think about a relevant solution.

I can’t believe she still defended McCain’s statement about the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” as referring to the workers. Unless you’re communist, you probably aren’t thinking on those terms. I think he simply slipped up. They should just stop talking about it so that it goes away. He’s said so many things like that about not knowing anything about the economy, thinking it was strong when it wasn’t (repeating Bush’s comments that made my jaw drop-see jan 28, 2008 post), choosing very questionable advisers to help him form policy on this subject he doesn’t know much about that I just don’t trust his judgment on this issue. They’ve finally let go of the Bridge to Nowhere. Maybe it’ll take time to let go of this one, too. It seems like they keep repeating some of the same gaffes (misleading accusations or embellished accomplishments), or defenses of them long after the public knows that they aren’t giving it to us straight. I don’t know what would account for the gap. Maybe they only communicate via USPS?

There was a question about the VP role that got some interesting answers. Palin said a VP presides over the Senate and that she’s glad the Constitution allows more authority given the VP if the VP so chooses to use it?? Huh? They vote when there’s a tie. Not exactly what I’d call authority or choosing to use authority. I guess they only half prepped her on that one since she last answered that question.

Let’s talk about the Israel love fest. “No one’s a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden.” That may be true, but take your head out of the sand for a minute. You’re not speaking in front of the AIPAC. You’re running for VP. You need to have a reasonable outlook (not that many Presidents and VPs have in a long time) on this. But if I don’t like the Democrats’ position on this, I’m going to hate the Republican position which can be blended with religious themes that are equally as crazy (not to mention unbiblical) as unconditional support for Israel and its state sponsored terrorism. The two state solution is falling out of favor with the people involved (or half of the people) and the situation on the ground (support for Israeli land grabs past and present, walls being built) is making a two state solution obsolete.

Palin brought up putting the embassy in Jerusalem, Israel as a peace seeking nation, its track record of peace seeking (yeah, and Ariel Sharon was a man of peace and pigs can fly), second holocaust. Insisting on the embassy in Jerusalem immediately sends the message you support Israel despite their contribution to the bloodshed and will only hamper the process, so you might as well stay out of it altogether if you take that position. About Israel and peace-seeking- they have a way of doing this on the surface, but with the motive of delaying final status issues so that they can grab more land with the goal of taking it all (google “political formaldehyde” for Weisglass’ quote on that). Enough with the second holocaust scare tactics already! Israel’s got one of the world’s strongest militaries and a history of ruthless leaders. You can’t convince me of their vulnerability, existential threat or their need for our continued assistance, free from any conditions to respect our laws and human rights by invoking old images of gas chambers.

Biden said he didn’t support the Palestinian elections because he knew Hamas would take over. Had all of the elections been allowed to be conducted around the same time, Hamas probably wouldn’t have won in the second batch. The US position of only supporting democratic elections when the outcome is favorable to us also contributed to the Gaza mess. We should either support democracy (like we claim to) or stay out of all of it.

Biden didn’t inspire confidence when he didn’t talk about Jerusalem. Obama had taken the Bush position of essentially giving it to Israel, no questions asked.

Both candidates are taking Bush’s position or maybe even a farther right, more hawkish position.


Palin called Obama/Biden “white flag of surrender in Iraq” which I think is not true and could be a misrepresentation or exaggeration.

Biden deserves some credit for overcoming personal tragedy, much like McCain. I really hadn't heard about Biden's as much as McCain's, so that was interesting and adds a new dimension to his character for me.

On the question of what would you change or cut from your plans due to the debt problem posed by the crisis, the VP candidates passed on this as the Presidential candidates did. I just don’t think you can get an answer from a candidate when you ask about cutting the plan or even about their Achilles heel. Those answers were rather comical. Palin responded to the lack of experience as a weakness (or if that’s not it, what is) question by saying she in fact has the executive experience and business experience and mom experience and that with being reform minded is why she’s on a good ticket. The closest she got to answering the question was saying that we as a nation aren’t perfect.

Biden did better in that he admitted to having an Achilles heel – lack of discipline or “excessive passion”, but didn’t really talk about what that means or how to deal with it in terms of being the VP. He used the time really to respond to Palin’s answer which was actually the opposite of the question asked. Biden does deserve some credit for his life experience. That is an unimaginable situation he was in and he got through it. He made a good point and maybe was smart to respond to Palin’s mom experience with his own. It was a bit comical to hear him try and out-mom her, though, with this and the violence against women legislation. I wonder how the public in general took it- did they feel a connection and sympathy or think it political?


Palin did have a little problem when she called McKeirnan McClellan and misquoted him (as did Biden?). She said that he said the surge would work in Afghanistan and I don’t think that’s what he said.

Palin mischaracterized Obama’s plan as government-run, even called it a mandate

Palin’s last remarks took a shot at the media for her shortcomings in the Gibson and Couric interviews. The filter of mainstream media?? Was she not talking to us in the televised interview? I didn’t see anyone telling us what we saw. I saw someone asking her questions she wasn’t prepared to answer- like a kid on a pop quiz who didn’t read the book. Maybe what she means by “talking directly to the people” is that she’d rather give a pre-fab speech rather than answer questions on the spot. I can totally understand that, but it’s not the media’s fault for how she performed in the interviews. They were pretty basic policy questions. The only thing that would have been more softball would be if they asked her how she felt to be running as the woman candidate, how she feels about x, y or z.



Palin’s use of Biden’s past quotes:
I wanted to do some fact checking on these things where she threw Biden’s own words at him, but I may not get to it. I don’t think she has these things exactly right, but I’d have to check. It sounds somewhat factual, but with the effort to mislead and misrepresent.

Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic.
***
I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.
***
Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so.
PALIN: And Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that. You said that his vote was political and you said it would cost lives.
***
We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

Now, you said regarding Senator McCain's military policies there, Senator Biden, that you supported a lot of these things. In fact, you said in fact that you wanted to run, you'd be honored to run with him on the ticket, and that's an indication I think of some of the support that you had at least until you became the VP pick here.

You also said that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief. And I know again that you opposed the move that he made to try to cut off funding for the troops and I respect you for that. I don't know how you can defend that position now, but I know that you know especially with your son in the National Guard and I have great respect for your family also and the honor that you show our military. Barack Obama though, another story there. Anyone I think who can cut off funding for the troops after promising not to is another story.
***
Ifill’s question:
…you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances (Palin apparently thought we’d believe she was joking and we have to take him at his word even though when you’re running for President, I don’t guess there’s any room for pondering, “hmm, if I lose, I really, really want to be VP”.)

*** *** ***
On the SNL VP debate…which I watched online since I can’t seem to stay up anymore…

I loved how they zinged Biden on the Scranton thing and Palin on the Couric interviews- It’s good to be here without the filter of the gotcha media with their fact checking, follow up questions, and the need to figure out what your words mean and why you put them in that order.

I really should have seen the last joke coming with the Joe six pack and maverick self labeling abound, but I nearly blew my tea all over the computer. It was the wink, I think.

Economy, Palin chaperoned, advisers, etc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902049.html

The majority of House Republicans were against the bailout and McCain’s blaming Democrats- principally Obama and Pelosi- for the failure. Politics ahead of country? That’s reaching. I guess they need to create a little controversy to deflect attention away from the Palin interviews. McCain sat in on yesterday’s. She didn’t do as bad this time, but with McCain sitting there policing, it sent the message that she couldn’t handle the situation or wasn’t trusted to do so (maybe for good reason). There was the question about the voter asking about Pakistan…again McCain tried to divert attention away from the issue (reminiscent of Bush when under fire for a variety of questionable actions in his Presidency) with the “Gotcha Journalism” (another Bush tactic-give everything a catchy nickname so people remember the diversion, rather than the issue of concern) commentary. It was a “gotcha” moment. Palin gave an answer like the one McCain criticized from Obama. It’s a legit “gotcha”! Palin’s allowed to tell the terrorists our general plan, but Obama’s supposed to not let anyone know what he thinks should be done on foreign policy issues. Doesn’t really make sense.

Obama didn’t blame anyone for the crisis, but is talking about McCain’s deregulation history. McCain did say “ Fundamentals of the economy are strong.” And that he’s “fundamentally a deregualtor”.

I have heard some in conservative circles about McCain’s bill and warning of the financial crisis. If McCain did cosponsor something to fix Fannie and Freddie in 2003 or 2005, why is he not talking more about that? It seems like that would be ripe for disputing Obama’s digs…unless it is not as it seems. The bill never made it out of Republican committee, to Senate floor. His economic plan is more like Gramm’s, not this bill. Gramm left the campaign as chief economic advisor after the whiner comment this summer, but still assists the campaign, which is frightening.

On the one hand you’ve got that and on the other you’ve got different things McCain has said. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/mccain_its_abou.html
(It was at this point he looked to Gramm for advice-yikes!)

This is a sore point for both campaigns. Both candidates have connections to Fannie and Freddie- McCain’s got Phil Gramm and Rick Davis, among others.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-18-econteams_N.htm

Here’s a different view:
It wasn’t Fannie and Freddie
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/once-again-it-w.html


Old McCain foreign policy adviser list:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/mccain-advisers/

More recent list:
http://www.connectusfund.org/mccain

Economic adviser list:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/other-list-mccains-economists.html


Voting record
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/69733

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/


This could be an interesting site. I didn’t have a chance to peruse it for long…
http://www.procon.org


Two oft repeated McCain quotes that make me chuckle:
(He repeated them in the debate, though he rushed through the delivery of the veto pen one so it wasn’t as dramatic as at stump speeches)
*veto pen; “ I will make them famous and you will know their names”
*”snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”- talking about Obama’s plan

Unbelievable Couric interview with Palin

Palin and Gibson, Couric - her coming out party has not been great so far, even though she is shielded fom the press. She may have peaked at the convention. She looked absolutely lost- I could feel the panic- both when Gibson asked her certain foreign policy questions (Bush doctrine) and when Couric asked her about Rick Davis, Freddie Mac . Palin couldn't cite any examples of McCain reforming "the way Wall Street does business" except the one Couric gave. She floundered and brought up the maverick slogan (when all else fails...) and then said she'd have to look it up and get back to her. McCain's got the Davis connection, among others, and he's trying to call Obama out for Raines, whom someone on the campaign apparently spoke to for a few minutes once. McCain should tread carefully when it comes to lobbyist/financial crisis ties. I think that is a losing contest for him, as there are so many and his record is not exactly clean or like that of a maverick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abicOUTn6v0&NR=1huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html

More on Palin...
I guess the good news from her recent interviews is, Palin can now answer yes (without hesitation and clarification) to Gibson's question about meeting foreign leaders after her adventures at the UN. I still don't think that photo ops,no matterhow many you cram into 2 days, qualify as foreign policy experience any more than seeing Russia from an island in your state. I wonder if they will try and squeeze in an impressive number so that they can put in an ad that she "knows" more foreign leaders than Obama, never mind she doesn't know the issues, her party's position, at times her candidate's position, hasn't worked with foreign leaders or on foreign affairs in any official capacity. We will have to wait and see.

She responded to the notion that she viewed having Russia and Canada as neighbors "enhanced" (or made) her foreign policy experience. Some were saying she wasn't exactly saying that proximity was experience, but in speaking to Couric, she definitely equated proximity with experience (Her answer being, "Well it certainly does...") and dodged the question a bit with the trade delegation side note. And what she said about Putin!? "As Putin rears his head?!" I don't think you want to be talking that way about someone you hope to negotiate with, keep on friendly terms with, or want any sort of favors from in the near future. I guess that pales in comparison to McCain's talk of Russia. Not exactly your diplomatic dream team. Yikes.

Palin on Israel. Wow. She knows or cares even less than Bush about this foreign policy centerpiece. We can't second guess Israel because of the Holocaust??!! Our government (+Palin) is way more supportive (unconditionally and obsequeously so) of the Israeli regime, occupation, and collective punishment of Palestinians than a lot of people in Israel! Expressing concerns and discussing options isn't second guessing...hmm. She los tme there, but I am a bit tired... When all else fails, oversimplify and frame it as good versus evil. I'm kinda glad she elaborated, 'cause I was having a hard time figuring out who the good guys were. The history of extra-judicial assassinations, collective punishment, settlement existence/ building, disproportionate force, and suspicious evidence regarding targeting of civilians. Israel's multiple counts and decades of defying international law warrant a close watch or even sanctions. She toed the Zionist line that Israel is under an existential threat; that any threat is in fact existential. They have one of the most powerful militaries in the world and maybe the most powerful for its size. They don't need us (except maybe to steal classified info from). I don't know how their military would fair without our money pouring in, though.

McCain was worried that Obama was exploiting the financial situation for his own gain (when all the pundits were saying Obama boost in polls was due to the economy), but it seems he himself has put himself before his country in calling for debates and campaigning to stop so he can go to Washington and pace around and wait on the negotiations he and Obama aren't a part of to conclude. McCain and Obama's presence in Washington won't help the situation- they aren't on the committees as far as I know. So, debate away. Maybe I'd suggest moving the debate closer to Washington in case they need to vote or something, but cancelling it so they can sit around or pace like expectant fathers in old movies just seems like a political play to put off a debate that would highlight McCain's record of support for deregulation at a time when these actions are exposed as not serving us well- or in fact causing the whole mess. Perhaps McCain would like to postpone the debates until after another major terrorist attack?

Interesting in Bush's explanation of the mess was the absence of talk about deregulation which helped or caused the situation. He also said this situation transpired over the course of years, not overnight, yet in March- just 6 months ago- he was saying (along with McCain's advisor Phil Gramm) that our economy is strong. I don't know what to believe when Bush speaks anymore. I guess expect the opposite of truth.