Monday, October 6, 2008

Debating Ed Rollins Advice to McCain

Mike Huckabee's former campaign chairman Ed Rollins published this piece giving advice to John McCain on CNN today (Commentary: Time for John McCain to turn up the heat).

Even though I am a liberal I have respect for Rollins.  He is very smart and clear-headed (too bad for McCain he didn't hire Rollins as his Campaign Manager!).

Though I'm not complaining...  ;-)

BUT, i do have 3 points to debate Rollins on.

#1, the 90's argument:
Electing President Obama would eliminate important checks and balances on liberal Democratic power in Washington and that could be a disaster. It was a disaster when Bush and the Republicans controlled it all. It was a disaster when Clinton and the Democrats controlled it all.
Claiming the Democratic Congress & President in the 90's was a disaster needs backing up: most people remember the '90s as a period of American success!  Also, remember, Republicans took over Congress in the mid-'90's,

#2, the "Change is only a brand" argument:
According to the latest Gallup polling, 87 percent of the country thinks the economic picture is getting worse -- another record. The Republican brand is as damaged as at any time since the Watergate scandal 35 years ago. The country is facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago.
Rollins continues to argue,
What [Obama's] campaign has done is create a "brand" that represents change. But voters don't know what that means.
Rollins criticizes the Change theme of the Democrats as merely a "brand," but at the same time laments the GOP's damaged "brand."   The two arguments cancel each other out. 

Furthermore, citing the Gallup Poll above, voters indeed have a good idea what Change means: in this case the definition is a negative one, "Change" means essentially "whatever the Republicans ARE NOT."

#3, the "We don't know him" argument:
...we have seen thousands of pictures and heard hundreds of speeches and watched in amazement as his team has put together a brilliant campaign that beat back the Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. But we still don't know him.
Really?  Isn't it a bit late to make that argument?

After thousands of speeches and 2 personal books how can we NOT know who Barack Obama is?  He's been out there showing us who he is for over a year straight now.  If we don't know him by now we haven't been listening....

.... and that leads to the major problem John McCain and the GOP have this year: a large portion of public has decided they *do* know who Barack Obama is, and that he is everything he says he is.  

And that, "my friends," is the real reason John McCain is losing this election.  The voters have decided they *do* know who these two candidates are.  One represents the successful fiscal and foreign policies reminiscent of the flourishing 1990's, and the other represents the failed values and policies of the last 8.  Is it any wonder that John McCain is behind?  And as his campaign turns desperately to distractions and personal Swift-boat-style attacks, voters will only be reminded more of the negative politics of George Bush & Dick Cheney.

If there is anything I agree with Rollins on, it is this:
From what I hear, the campaign's plans are to put John McCain back in the seat of his A-4 Skyhawk bomber and drop bomb after bomb on Obama to try to convince voters he is unfit to lead.

I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.

Personal attacks won't work this late in the campaign and may backfire on McCain

Best,
D. Tree

Monday, September 29, 2008

McCain Needs a Permission Slip to Protect America?

Do I have this right?  On the question of striking Bin Laden across national borders, McCain says he wants to call a meeting before taking action?

Sure, its been 3 days since the first Presidential Debate of the General Election, and much hay has been made about the candidate's different responses to this question, but I have yet to see anyone compare their answers to a similar question posed to Bush & Kerry back in 2004.

You might remember a different variation of the same question came up, and how Bush and Cheney ripped John Kerry on his answer of passing a "global test" for your military actions. 

Bush said Kerry will allow foreign powers to veto military action:
Kerry "said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine," Bush said at a convention of home builders here. "He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. . . . Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions."
Dick Cheney repeated the charges continuously, making it one of his favorite lines:
Vice President Cheney has long accused Kerry of proposing to seek a "permission slip" from foreign countries before taking military action
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears we find ourselves in an interesting situation here: the Republican candidate is saying he would consult with Pakistan before launching a strike against Bin Laden or his top lieutenants?

Indeed, we find ourselves in strange times if it is the Democrat who is asserting that we have a right to strike Bin Laden across national borders, and it is the Republican who is seeking a "permission slip."

My question is, when will the rest of the media - and even the Obama campaign - pick up on this ironic twist of events?


Friday, September 19, 2008

Suggestion to Dems: Drop the Palin "Experience" Angle

My dear fellow Dems (and Obama strategists if you are listening).

I believe the constant talk of Palin's lack of government experience is a Trojan Horse for us.

A friendly suggestion: let's drop the talk about her experience now!

Why? Well, for some Dems who were along for the Clinton/Obama primary fight, this might seem like a natural line of attack; However - and I'm only speaking for myself - "experience" has never a deciding factor in my decision.

Even though I vowed to support the nominee, no matter who it was, Obama's relatively little Washington experience was actually a plus in my book.

I have never based my presidential decision on the person's resume: I have (as I believe most voters do) based my decisions on the kind of leader and person the candidate is.

In fact, the more experience they have, the more likely I would be to look for someone else to support: voters want to see fresh and new faces. The more we hammer away at her lack of experience, the more we emphasize her "outsider" status... this only works in her favor!

The presidency is not based on a person's resume (even though you can legitimately say "it should be.") No, the person who wins the presidency is the candidate who connects with the voters and inspires them.

So, turn this around and look at it from the Republican perspective: Palin's lack of a Washington resume is as appealing to them as Obama's relative freshness is to many of us.

Are you following me so far?

Furthermore, when we hammer the notion of "experience" being the reason voters should not support Palin, the more we undermine our own candidate, who also does not have many years of Washington experience.

It is working against us, and distracting everyone else from more beneficial lines of advance.

On the experience issue, I think the best thing we can do is let the Republicans fight amongst themselves about Palin's level of experience. This issue is more relevant to their *internal* party politics, than it is to us. They will fight about this issue amongst themselves without our help.

In the meantime, here's what I think we SHOULD focus on: Sarah Palin is *just-like-George-Bush*.

- She is the governor of an oil rich state, just like Bush was Governor of Texas; therefore she will approach Energy policy from the perspective of the Oil and Gas industry.

- She is hardcore evangelical Christian who believes the government should align with her own personal values, rather than reflecting the diverse values of our nation.

- She governs not with nuance, but with brash and bold pronouncements. She will be just like Bush in her foreign policy: all stick and no carrot.

...and finally, the biggest whopper of all:

- Palin believes she is above the law: if she is willing to ignore subpoenas for something as trivial as "Troopergate," how do you think she will deal with much more serious matters?

Governor Palin has only been on the ticket for a few weeks, and already she's abusing he power and refusing to work with her other legitimately-elected counterparts in State government.

This shows us how she will deal with Congress, and the other branches or our federal government. This also shows us how protective she is when it comes to matters of personal job performance and judgment.

We can see from this example, she is the opposite of the REFORM and TRANSPARENCY she claims herself to be.

Just like Bush in 2000 said: I am "compassionate conservative," will not engage in "nation building," believe in a "humble foreign policy," and will "limit greehouse gases" (yes he said all those things), so to with Governor Palin. She says she will be a reformer, but her actions show her to be more of the same.

The problem with Palin, therefore, is not that she is inexperienced: its that she is just like George Bush.

So rather than focusing on the "experience" issue, I suggest you spread the word that we focus on this instead:

We cannot afford another George Bush in the Whitehouse, and that is exactly what Sarah Palin is.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush? LIPSTICK.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Ask McCain about Social Security... NOW!

The time is now: as Wall Street implodes, thanks in part to the deregulation and lack of oversight of our Republican administration, John McCain is desperately moving to the left in an effort to show he can handle our volatile economy.
McCain said in an interview that he didn't want the government to bail
out AIG. "But there are literally millions of people whose retirement,
whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here," he said in an
interview with "Good Morning America" on ABC. "They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption."
Now all of a sudden, John McCain favors regulation. (Much - I'm sure - to the chagrin of free-market fundamentalists in the Republican party).

Now all of a sudden, John McCain is worried about average Americans affected by this lack of oversight and deregulation.

Yes, it boggles the mind. He was never worried about it before he had an election to lose! And as he tried to tack to the right during the Republican primaries, he often boasted about how against regulation he is.

Well, not John McCain is singing a different tune and its our opportunity to press the advantage: I'm calling on the Obama team (if you are out there and listening), to immediately question John McCain's commitment to protecting social security.

The GOP has been trying to privatize Social Security for years, despite widespread opposition. Will John McCain join the rest of the American people opposed to gambling our future on Wall Street?

We see what is happening now on Wall Street. The American people need to know this is a preview of what could happen with Social Security: one misstep, and millions of Americans will lose their retirement savings.

Social Security was set up as a trust fund. It is not supposed to be touched. It is not supposed to be gambled, and we are experiencing the reason for that right now: Wall Street is collapsing, and we cannot afford to risk retirement savings byt throwing them into the very same volatile environment.

John McCain is caught between a rock and a hard place. Will he continue to deliver his prepared talking points? Will he continue to tell the American people all we need to do is continue the Bush/Cheney tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

There is only one way to find out, and that is to press the advantage and force him into making statements on Social Security. Let him tell us where he stands now, as the financial markets crumble - and then let's call him out on it when he is forced to share the liberal position of "hands off social security."

Friday, September 12, 2008

Barbara Walters Grills McSame on "Reform"

This is great.

This morning on The View, host Barbara Walters grilled John "the Same" McCain about his claim to reform Washington, and his choice of far-right Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin as VP.

She also pressed him about his increasingly negative campaign ads.

After a predictably jokey reply (McCain's normal way of getting out of trouble, BTW), Walters wouldn't take his joke as an answer:
Walters went on to press Palin's reformist credentials, noting McCain has served in Washington for more than two decades and asking repeatedly, "who's she going to reform, you?"

McCain began to answer by saying Democrats have held control of Congress for two years, before Walters quickly interrupted: “But tell me who she is going to reform — we aren't talking about the economy, we're not talking about housing, she was chosen to reform, who is she going to reform?"

"The Democrat Party, the Republican Party, even an independent," McCain said, appearing somewhat frustrated, "She'll reform all of Washington."

"How? What will she do," Walters appearing somewhat exasperated said. "What is she going to reform specifically, senator?"
Indeed, Senator McCain who is Palin going to reform? You are talking about the Republican Party, right? That's the only thing I see that urgently needs to be reformed!

And that line about Dems being in control of Congress for the last 2 years is total bull. We need to do away with that tripe: Republicans have controlled Congress for 10 of the last 12 years. Dems don't even control congress, since we only have a majority of 1 and that person is Joe Lieberman (a Democrat in Name Only)

This appearance on The View was a preview of the debates to come. The GOP is oh-so-good at distracting and dividing America, but when it comes to policy guess what? That's right, they are just MORE OF THE SAME.

Why all the Tough Talk on Russia? Easy.

Ever wonder why John "The Same" McCain, Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin, and the rest of the far-right politicos on their team keep talking so tough about Russia?

For me, there are two rather simple answers. Why haven't we seen anyone talking about this?

#1. Iraq is old news, the GOP knows that over 70% of America wants out. Therefore they cannot use the fear of Iraq to win this election, so they need a new bogeyman and Russia's problems with Georgia present the perfect opportunity!

Once again, the GOP is playing politics with world events in the hope of scaring people into voting for them.

#2. A conflict with Russia would not only distract us from Iraq, it would also serve the purpose of making use forget about it. Make no mistake, John McCain and George Bush want a PERMANENT OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. That talk about 50 years? John McCain means it! So let's not allow the media to buy into this farce that he will change course in Iraq. John McCain will continue the Bush policy in Iraq, because he wants us to STAY PERMANENTLY.

This is the message we need to repeat: We need to focus on John McCain, not so much on the mass distraction of Sarah Palin - she is only on the ticket in an attempt to divide our country and to buy John McCain time.

John McCain knows he can't win on the issues, so his Rovian campaign managers want to distract you and divide you until election day. We cannot allow this to happen!

Its time to focus on the issues, because if we do the Republican Party is doomed: the American People know very well that the GOP has failed to secure our country both militarily and economically. We just need to remind them about it every chance we get.

And we also need to call John McCain out on this Iraq policy: HOW is it different from president Bush? John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq permanently. He wants to stoke fears about Russia so we will forget about Iraq!

Thursday, September 11, 2008

My Ritual on 9-11

As I walk through the streets of New york today, an air of melancholy hangs overhead like gray clouds, diminishing the sunlight and dimming one's vision.

Here, at the epicenter of the attacks the mood is somber. Faces are drawn. No one is smiling.

No doubt, people are in mourning - not just in New York - but throughout the country; for - as George Lakoff so eloquently put it in his groundbreaking work Don't Think of An Elephant - when those planes hit the Towers, it was experienced collectively as a bullet going through our heads.

We are in mourning. But politics still permeate this day.

Hand written signs at my local bagel shop proclaim the now common adage: "We will never forget."

I wonder at this phrase sometimes: we will never forget what? Those who were killed? Or those who committed this crime?

7 years later, it seems painfully clear someone in our government has forgotten both.

What they remember instead is their self-appointed heroism. Their self-aggrandizing and self-proclaimed status as our "Fiercest protectors."

Yes, while we mourn Sept 11, there are those who have reason to celebrate it: Rudy Giuliani, for example who was perhaps days from losing his job as mayor due to an adultery & corruption scandal. 9-11 saved his career, and allowed him to reinvent himself in a new image. And all his flaws faded away into the distant memory of what life used to be like before 9-11.

Yes, while we collectively mourn, some in the halls of government privately give thanks. For example, those in the Bush administration who allowed the attacks to happen on their watch despite the warnings. They are thankful for being allowed to keep their jobs despite their failures to protect us.

Bush himself must be grateful he kept his job, despite the fact he was so involved in his own vacation that he turned away federal agents who came to him with the dire warning "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US." He must be grateful the American People have not decided to hold him accountable for his delinquency.

How did those responsible for allowing this to happen, escape responsibility for their failure to protect us?

It could only happen one way: point the finger the other way, capitalize on people's fears, and distract, distract, distract. Act aggressively. Be macho. Obscure your own faults with bold pronouncements of "Wanted, dead or alive."

Today I ride the subway to my office like any other day.

I could be afraid to leave the house on a day like this. I make my own hours, so I could stay home. I ask myself why not? And the answer always comes back: because I refuse to let Fear win.

And yet, as Rudy Giuliani stood on stage at the GOP convention, in front of an image of the NY skyline - minus the Twin Towers - I can't help but think how easily the party in power has given in to that Fear. They wave a big stick and talk aggressively about how they are the only ones you can trust to keep us safe, but they failed once already and they have let Fear win the day....

... but then I realize something else: they have not given in to Fear, they have embraced it as a political weapon.

If there ever was a time as dangerous as the day of the attack itself, it is on the anniversary day itself, when fear clouds our vision, when depression casts out hope, and when anger overshadows our dreams of a better future.

It is in this psychically dangerous moment that we are the most vulnerable, that we risk losing our common vision, and instead retreat into the confines of depression and fear.

Fear is Retreat. "We will never forget"

Let me share with you my ritual, my means of "never forgetting." Every year at this time, I choose to remember Sept 12th. I go to this link and look at the pictures of people around the world standing with us; mourning with us; and being willing to fight with us.

As the GOP hammered over and over again "Never Forget," THIS is what they forgot: our moral imperatives and our our shared responsibility.

Instead of leading us through the wilderness of despair and depression, they retreated into the darkness of Fear.

Some reading this will undoubtedly say "How can you be so political on a day like today?" I would ask in return "How can you hide from it?"

We cannot allow fear to stifle our American spirit. For the last 7 years we have allowed a single political party to beat us into submission with the fear and sadness of the 9-11 attacks.

We have allowed these politicians to wrap themselves in the flag, and to divide and scare us into voting for them.

These same people allowed the attacks to happen.

Remember: Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." Therefore the Republican manipulation of 9-11 is actually a recognition of the basic truth that terrorism is at its root a political tool.

Thus the pattern of politicizing 9-11 in order to profit from it in elections, is one example where the GOP does understand terrorism somewhat better than anyone else; however, it also reveals a weakness in that by definition terrorism can only be defeated politically, not militarily.

You do not fight politics with conventional weapons, you fight it with ideas. That is why liberals, while not the best at manipulating terror for political ends, are nevertheless better suited to fight terrorism: because we understand that not every conflict can be solved with military force. We must use diplomacy, persuasion, and - yes - market economics.

In order to defeat the threat of terrorism, we must win hearts and minds, not stop them from beating and thinking.

Picture this: you are under attack from an unseen enemy. To swing blindly at everything around you - as if aggression alone can defeat your enemy - shows weakness.

It is an act of fear.

To fear is to surrender.

To surrender is to retreat.

Thus, invading Iraq was an act of retreat; and fighting them "over there" so we don't have to face them "over here" is an act of fear.

This is how we must redefine the debate.

Peace,
D. Tree

Karl Rove's Version of Feminism?

I'm curious if anyone else finds something disturbing about this picture?

Is this an empowering image, or something else? Are we looking at feminism, or is this thinly disguised sexism?

I'm curious what others - especially self affirming feminists - think about this image, and what it means to be picked for "Second in Command?"

From CNN's Political Ticker today.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

7 Lobbyists Run McCain's Campaign

The McCain camp can talk all it wants about being a "maverick" or an "agent of change," but in the end, when it comes to the proverbial "facts on the ground," one thing is abundantly clear: John McCain's campaign is run and financed by lobbyists.

I'm glad to see Barack pushing back hard against the lies and swiftboat tactics of the Republicans.  Here's what Obama said recently in Flint, MI:
"John McCain says that he is going to tell all those lobbyists in Washington that their days of running Washington are over, which sounds pretty good until you discover that seven of his top campaign managers and officials are -- guess what? -- former corporate lobbyists,"

CNN picked up on this story by listing the lobbyists running McCain's campaign one-by-one. You might want to make a note of these names, because it will be useful in the days to come.

The top seven lobbyists running John McCain's campaign (link)

One: Campaign manager Rick Davis is a major telecommunications lobbyist.
Two: Senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann recently faced scrutiny over his foreign lobbying on behalf of the Republic of Georgia, which has been embroiled in a military conflict with Russia.
Three: Senior adviser Charlie Black was a foreign lobbyist for dictators in Zaire and Angola in the 1980s.
Four: Frank Donatelli, the Republican National Committee's liaison to the McCain campaign, has had clients including Exxon Mobil.
Five: Economic adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer has lobbied for corporate giants like Koch Industries.
Six and Seven: McCain's congressional liaison, John Green,  and national finance Co-chairman Wayne Berman. They both lobbied for Fannie Mae, the troubled mortgage giant.

Whew! That's a lot of lobbyists!

Take note people, these lobbyists take money from oil companies, foreign dictators, and failed wall street giants. 

And John McCain and Sarah Palin want to talk about government waste?  They want to talk about spending problems?

These two are with the party responsible for running our country into bankruptcy.  They are also with the party who has indebted us to foreign governments!

The Republican candidate for president has been selling our country's future to foreign governments, and he has people on his campaign who make money lobbying on behalf of dictators.

If John McCain wants to show America he is the "maverick" he claims, he need to put his money where his mouth is. He can show his goodwill and honesty to the American People, by getting rid of the lobbyists who run his campaign.

It's one thing to say you are "going to" shake things up in Washington, or that you "will bring change," but you can't make those claims and expect people to believe them if you are not practicing them now, Mr. McCain.

I have a challenge for you Senator McCain: Show the American people your word is good. Show us you are not just another greedy politician being run by lobbyists. Show us this by getting rid of the lobbyists who are running your campaign.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Lesson #1 for Dems: Dont' take advice from the GOP

I always find it interesting when Republicans offer Democrats election advice. I'm reminded of Karl Rove predicting "landslide wins" for the GOP congress in 2006, unless Dems followed his advice.

I find it amazing that people actually take his fork-tongued advice seriously, since it's clear he is only advising us on how to lose.

Similarly, Huckabee's campaign manager Ed Rollins published an "advice" piece for Democrats on CNN, advising us that we "should have picked Hillary for VP."
However, despite the fact that I actually kinda like funny ol' Huck, Rollins advice stunk of Rovian spin.

Among Rollins claims,
"If Obama had done the smart thing, he would have picked Sen. Hillary Clinton for vice president. If he had, he would have united his party for sure and energized his base."
Hillary would have been a controversial choice either way you look at it, but with Hillary set to testify in the Clinton's upcoming civil trial and with herlow "trustworthy" ratings, there's a lot of good reasons for her *not* to be on the ticket with Barack.

I'm sure GOP Strategists would have loved to have her on the ticket - she would have fired up their base at least as much as our own, if not more.

Rollins further claims that McCain would never have picked Palin if the Dems had Hillary on the ticket. In doing so, Rollins slips up a bit: he's acknolwedging that the ONLY reason he picked Palin was to divide Democrats.

In other words, the McCain campaign didn't pick Palin because of who she is and what she's done, but rather because she was the best female they could find to divide Democrats.

I think Hillary Clinton is a great leader and orator, but Ed Rollins "advice" comes at a suspicious time: the GOP is trying to drive a wedge into the Democratic Party with the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate.

Rollins' "advice" is timed perfectly to drive this wedge deeper by instilling doubt in our party over the pick of Biden, and by reminding people once again about Hillary.

It's all about divide and conquer for them.

We should expect the Republicans to continue to cite Hillary and remind use about our heated primary in-fighting; for, without a divided democratic party the GOP will not stand a chance in this election.

Monday, September 8, 2008

In Her Own Words: Palin's Support for Bridge to Nowhere

By now, most of you know about the new ad from the McCain/Palin campaign anointing themselves as "Original Mavericks."

The ad, widely ridiculed for its false claims, states that as governor, Sarah Palin stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere."

The Obama campaign says the ad is a blatant "lie," and FactCheck.org agrees.

So here - in her own words - is the truth about Sarah Palin's support for the Bridge To Nowhere.

Example #1:

In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted [Palin] expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006:
"People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge
because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and
the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan
area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s
congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge
as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of
the progress toward that bridge.”
Example #2 (from Factcheck.org):
Palin answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her
position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the
Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money
from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so
desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation
purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.
The Factcheck.org article continues, noting that the bridge flip-flop is not the only case where Sarah Palin's claims to be a government waste reformer do not match up with reality. Taxpayers for Common Sense reported that when she was mayor of the small town of Wasilia, AK, the town received more earmarks than ever before, hauling in$27 million under her leadership. What makes this all the more ironic, is the fact that John McCain has previously criticized several of those earmarks. This voter wants to know if the media will ask John McCain about his criticism of wasteful earmarks while Palin was mayor of Wasilia. Does he still think they were wasteful? If he says "yes," then how can he claim his running mate is the reformer she claims to be? If he says "no," then we must rightly ask, "Why then, Senator McCain, did you claim wasteful spending? Was it a political ploy, or is this another flip-flop?"

Wait, it doesn't stop there (link):
To help obtain these
earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for
recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form
on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in
earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.
If you ask me, this whole thing is a political ploy. John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the pocket of lobbyists and "corporate suprematists."

They think reform is just a "brand," and its insulting for them to dress themselves up as reformers while at the same time promising a continuation of the corrupt, wasteful, and arrogant policies of the Bush & Cheney administration.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Palin & McCain: Lying about Ebay Jet Sale

I know I'm not the only one who finds the two Republican candidates to resemble characters out of an episode of South Park - and as if that wasn't bad enough - their words and deeds just keep getting more cartoonish every day.

Sarah Palin, squinting like Clint Eastwood into the camera, made a claim about selling her state's luxury jet on Ebay:

"That luxury jet was over the top," she told Republican National Convention delegates when she accepted the party's vice presidential nomination Wednesday night. "I put it on eBay."

As intended, that little story line got a raucous round of applause. You could practically hear every Republican in the audience patting themselves on the back and thinking "we are so much better with money than those liberals!"

The former beauty queen is clearly comfortable in front of a crowd, and enjoys being center stage. The only problem is she misled the crowd with a story that was not entirely true.

CNN reports today, the jet didn't sell on Ebay. Palin did indeed "put" the jet on Ebay, but was unable to sell it. I guess giving her audience the whole truth wouldn't have made for such a good soundbite, huh?

Of course that hasn't stopped the kool-aid drinkers in the republican party from gleefully repeating the story everywhere they go. Even John McCain is getting in on the action, saying at a campaign stop,

"How many saw her speech a couple of nights ago? Wasn't it fabulous?" McCain said Friday during a campaign stop in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was purchased by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit."

Not so fast, Mr. McCain. The jet was sold by a private broker... for a loss!

Let's review: Palin claims to sell the plane on Ebay to the roaring approval of her audience (she will later claim she didn't lie because she never actually said she "sold" it). Faithful followers repeat the story everywhere they go as evidence of how much smarter they are, and how much better they are with money than Democrats. And finally, senile old John McCain repeats the lines given to him by his staff and swallows the lie himself hook line and sinker.

The truth never stood in the way of a good republican talking point.

This whole story is emblematic of the last 8 years of Republican rule. They make promises to bring us economic success, but bring us losses instead; they claim to be strong on security, but they've made the world a more dangerous place with their reckless foreign policy. They cast themselves as ethical, but have presided over the most corrupt government in our history. Simply put, they cast themselves as reformers, but bring us more of the same.

There's more to this issue than misleading the convention about an Ebay sale.

The real story here is about credibility and confidence. John McCain's repeating of the fake story give us a glimpse of the kind of president he will be: a man with no knowledge of the facts on his own, and who will rely on flunkies for information instead.

Echoes of Reagan and the Iran/Contra Scandal.

Reagan was so out of touch with what was going on around him, he allowed illegal arms sales to Iran on his watch. Under a president McCain, we risk another leader so clueless of his surroundings, that he would allow the worst to happen right under his nose.

We cannot afford 4 more years of people who would lie so easily about an Ebay sale; even worse, in these dangerous and complex times, we cannot afford a clueless president who will drive us ignorantly down a road to international and economic disaster.

To put it simply once again, we need a president who will be sharp as a tack, not one who is as dull as ditchwater.

Friday, September 5, 2008

As a Democrat I'm Happy with Palin's Speech

You heard me right.

Because despite the cheap shots - which were to be expected - There's something people are over looking: in the end she attempted to make the speech about "Change."

And that's great for Democrats, because even if you dislike both parties equally - as many independents and "swing voters" do - there is only one party responsible for the state our country is in now, and that party has the problem of being responsible for 8 years of pathetic leadership, dwindling prosperity, and a world more volatile and dangerous than it was before.

The GOP has made America less safe.

That's right, i'm challenging the GOP on securing America, and I would gladly challenge the GOP on our economy. They've left it in shambles, and all they seem to think about is power - accumulating it and consolidating it. Can the country really afford 4 more years of this? They are ruining us.

The GOP has not only made us less safe, they have made us poorer, without health care, and they have allowed our vital infrastructure like roads, bridges, and levees to fall into shambles.

They are like bad rental tenants who trash the place they live in. And yet they stand on a stage draped in flags with signs that say "Country First."

Does the Republican Party truly put "Country First?"

Doesn't look like it to me. In the last 8 years, we've seen them lie, cheat, and steal their way through our government. A record number have been arrested and jailed for their corruption. Does that sound like "Country First?"

Democrats, on the other hand, have been fighting for ethics reform and an end to this culture of corruption. We have sought to bring the truth of Bush & Cheney's lies and abuses of the Constitution to light - even as right wing operatives sought to strip all power from Congress, in the form of record filibusters and abuses of executive power.

Its truly amazing that the Republican Party is wrapping itself in slogans of "Country First," and "Change." Their record speaks for itself: They put themselves first, and to hell with the rest of the country. Its amazing, but not really surprising. The GOP has always put "branding" before substance, slogans before content. And now they are doing more of the same.

Well, this time around I'm a bit glad, because there is no chance in hell the party that's in power will be able to run on a slogan of "Change." They adopted the Brand from us Democrats, but we are the party who came up with the idea, and we are the party who has actually made progress in ending corruption in Washington.

If the GOP wants to run on a "Change" platform, they are going to have to learn that Change is more than a brand or a slogan. There's a difference between words and actions, and the abysmal record of the GOP putting themselves first, and country last, show they still have a long way to go before they even understand that distinction.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Fred Thompson "Skewers" Himself

CNN's Political Ticker reported today on Fred Thompson's speech against Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention as a Skewering of Barack Obama.

But being thoroughly wrong on History - even his own - the only person Thompson skewered was himself.

When have facts ever gotten in the way of a republican delivering their talking points?

The Republican Party just loves to invoke history, but they almost never get it right.


Thompson's mistakes one by one:

#1) Old Fred said Democrats are running "the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee ever to run for president."

Freddy boy, you got it all wrong: Barack Obama has exactly the same experience that Abraham Lincoln had when he ran for president, do you think Abe Lincoln was not a good president?

#2) Old Fred said our Democrat-led congress is "the least accomplished and most unpopular congress in our nation's history."

Oh Freddy boy, don't you know that the Democrat-led congress inherited your party's failed track record? The low approval ratings for Congress come as a result of the corruption in the GOP and the awful laws they passed.

Here's a fact for you Freddy boy: the Democratic 110th Congress broke the record for most votes on legislation, with over 1,000 votes in the first year. As a comparison, the Republican-controlled congress (also known as the "do-nothing congress") held a meager 543 votes and sabotaged the new Democratic Majority by leaving 9 of 11 appropriations bills un-passed.

Actually, the fact that Democrats broke records in passing legislation is quite amazing if you factor in the additional problem of obstructionist republicans, who filibustered a record 1 in 6 votes last year!

#3) Fred Thompson made a poor attempt at pandering to social conservatives in the audience by attacking Obama's statement that he is not qualified to determine where life begins and ends.

Well guess what Fred? This isn't a movie, this is reality. You are not just playing a part on an elaborate set. In 1994, you yourself said, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."

RNC just another acting gig for Mr. Thompson.


Never let the truth stand in the way of good talking points, right Freddy boy?

Speaking in hyperbole is nothing new in politics - but the republican party is scraping the bottom of the barrel this time. I don't know what's worse, the fact this actor thought he was qualified to run for president, or the possibility that he actually believes the lines he's delivering.

Fred must think he's just playing a new acting part, on the set of the Republican National Convention. It makes sense for an actor to deliver these lines, because the GOP has always cared about spin more than reality.

Monday, September 1, 2008

RNC Postponed Because Gustav Causes Bad P/R

The GOP wants you to think they are canceling most of their major activities Monday night because - as John McCain said - it's time to "act as Americans, not Republicans."

But there's something else you won't hear from the GOP or read on CNN: The Republicans have big P/R problems with Gustav. At a time when possible disaster is imminent, the Republican National Convention will be low on the news reporting agenda.

The RNC must be thinking, what a terrible time to grab headlines, we can't compete with a hurricane.

But that's just part of the problem for the McCain campaign. The other part has to do with the candidate himself.

John McCain has a bad P/R image he needs to overcome, because while Katrina ravaged New Orleans in 2005, he chose to eat birthday cake with president Bush.

Now, desperate not to have images of McCain eating cake with Bush as another hurricane hits the Gulf Coast, the RNC has no choice but to tone down the political rhetoric, and to trot McCain out in front of the press with talking points about a selfless "call to action."

So while the Mainstream Media might be slow to pick up on the underlying reasons the RNC has a problem with Gustav, we all know its not just because "America needs us now no matter whether we are Republican or Democrat," it's because - as usual - for the Republican Party everything is about P/R and branding... and right now Mother Nature is raining on both big time.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

McCain VP: Attack Dog with Nothing to Lose?

Conventional wisdom holds that Joe Biden's job as Obama's VP pick will be twofold: to appeal to voters in the base who have not signed on to Obama's candidacy, and to attack John McCain as only another senior member of the Senate can.

In my last post, I looked at the pitfalls of the GOP's choice for McCain. One of the observations I made was that if they are willing to throw out the "too young and inexperienced" line of attack, they must have something else in store. Perhaps they have given up on that angle, and will revert to the dirty character attacks of Republican campaigns past.

That's where Sarah Palin comes in.

Clearly, the GOP still has some fight left in them after Bush destroyed their party. The advantages of having Sarah Palin on the campaign trail are obvious: she's a champion for big oil, and radical right wing base will love her (Gov. Palin opposes choice, even in instances of rape or incest).

By selecting Governor Palin as McCain's VP, the Republican Party is able to suck up to their two most important constituents: Oil companies, and right wing culture warriors.

Looking at Sarah Palin, signs of a dirty general election are ominously clear: The 2 year governor of Alaska, whose only other leadership experience was as mayor of a small town of 8,000, has nothing to lose in attacking Obama at the throat.

If the campaign is going to get personal and dirty, then it makes complete sense for the GOP to select a VP candidate who shamelessly sued the Bush Administration for putting the Polar Bear on the Endangered Species List because it might hinder oil drilling. (BTW, this is an area the Obama campaign should expand upon: Sarah Palin is so far to the right, she thought the Bush/Cheney administration too soft on the environment).

Sarah Palin, a relatively young and obscure political figure literally from out of nowhere, has nothing to lose in attacking Obama at the throat.

Perhaps that is why the GOP did not select an older more experienced candidate for the job: no one is willing to risk their political career playing dirty against the inspiring candidate that Obama is.


Not so with Palin. She has a long political career ahead of her if this works out, and nothing to lose if it doesn't. She appears willing to take the risk to further her personal political fortunes. If she loses, people will just forget about her for a few years, and she will fade in to the background again.

If this politician has no shame in putting oil companies before endangered polar bears, I have a feeling she'll have no reservations about hitting Obama below the belt on character and patriotism.

Watch out. The far-right cabal that has taken over our country knows they will lose it all if we elect Barack Obama president. There is no low they won't stoop to. We've already seen a Swift Boat attack book and commercial, and the general election has not even begun.

If you thought Bush / Kerry in 2004 was ugly, this election is going to make it look like a honeymoon.


Saturday, August 30, 2008

McCain Campaign: the Greedy Dog of Aesop's Fables

Like the fable of old, the GOP decision to select Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate reminds me of The Dog and his Reflection:
A Dog, to whom the butcher had thrown a bone, was hurrying home with his prize as fast as he could go. As he crossed a narrow footbridge, he happened to look down and saw himself reflected in the quiet water as if in a mirror. But the greedy Dog thought he saw a real Dog carrying a bone much bigger than his own.

If he had stopped to think he would have known better. But instead of thinking, he dropped his bone and sprang at the Dog in the river, only to find himself swimming for dear life to reach the shore. At last he managed to scramble out, and as he stood sadly thinking about the good bone he had lost, he realized what a stupid Dog he had been.

The GOP sees disaffected female Hillary supporters, and practically drools at the prospect of poaching them from the Democratic party. At the same time the GOP needs to steal as much thunder as possible from Obama's nomination, so naturally, they stage the VP announcement for the day after Obamas historic acceptance speech to 75,000 people, an event which got higher ratings than the Oscars and the Olympics.

The GOP had to do something spectacular, right? But will it hurt them in the end?

The problem for the GOP is they are focusing on short term gains, and losing track of the long view. Though they play a good game at appearing confident (remember, Karl Rove predicted the GOP would win by a landslide in 2004), the decision to select Palin as McCains running mate shows some mortal weaknesses:

In their dash to outshine Obama, they thought they had a win-win: a controversial candidate, and one who could court disillusioned female Clinton supporters at the the same time. In their haste, they didn't stop to think how Palin might play out for their strategy of attacking Obama's level of experience.

McCain campaign believes Sarah Palin is ready to be commander in chief.

The GOP's primary argument against Obama is that he is not old enough, nor has he spent enough time in Washington to be "ready to lead." That argument looks quite silly now.

One has to wonder: is the GOP is plagued by division and ineptitude, since their smartest have been arrested or left the party? Don't they realize what they are doing to their central argument?

Or, are they trying to divert our attention? Maybe they have given up on the "too young and inexperienced" argument, and plan to revert to the character attacks and whisper campaigns accusing Barack of being a secret radical.

Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: the gloves are about to come off, and if we thought the primary was exciting, wait until the next act begins. The General election is about to start, and I think its going to get rowdy.

Monday, August 25, 2008

McCain Airs Second Ad Targeting Angry Clinton Voters

Trying to capitalize on the anger of some Hillary Clinton supporters, the McCain campaign released its second ad in two days targeting Hillary voters for conversion to the Republican Party.

The ad is filled with images if Hillary Clinton herself, and features Debra Bartoshevich, a former Clinton Delegate who is now actively campaigning for the Republican Party:

"I'm a proud Hillary Clinton Democrat," says Bartoshevich, a nurse,
in the 30-second spot. "She had the experience and judgment to be
president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John
McCain.

"A lot of Democrats will vote McCain. It's okay, really!"

What Bartoshevich doesn't explain is why it will be "okay." Why would it be "okay" for someone who supports the life and cause of Hillary Clinton, to back a party that has attacked her more unfairly than even the worst democrats? Would it be "okay" to go from opposing the Iraq War to supporting it? Would it be "okay" to fight for choice, then give up and support the candidate who promises he will have a "pro life" administration? Why would it be "okay" to go from standing up for the struggles of working people, to supporting the richest and most corrupt few? How can a person be a nurse, and support the party that doesn't want to reform health care?

A Moral Quandary

No, Ms. Bartoshovich does not give any of these explanations because she has become nothing more than a sad pawn in the republican game; one has to wonder if she realizes they would sacrifice her well-being and values the minute they had a chance. Now the Republican vultures are circling over our convention, looking for easy prey:
...the campaign's "Citizens for McCain" outreach initiative to former
Clinton supporters, are being joined this week by efforts on the
ground, as senior advisor Carly Fiorina and other top McCain officials
head to Denver to recruit these disaffected Democrats.
The GOP does not stand for anything Hillary Clinton stands for. How any Democrat could be enticed to go on TV and support McCain is beyond me.

One also has to wonder at the ethics involved in being a party delegate to the Convention, who then deserts the party when the election doesn't turn out the way they wanted it. Clearly there is an ethical problem with this kind of conditional democracy, because Ms. Bartoshevich was stripped of her delegate status for supporting the opposing party.

Democracy is about cooperation toward a common cause, such that if you don't end up on the winning side you accept that fact because more people voted the other way. No such morality seems to be defining former delegates like Ms. Bartoshevich, not to mention the conflict in values a person like this must feel as they shift their support from a liberal, pro-choice Hillary Clinton to a Republican who opposes the Fair Pay Act, and claims he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Swift Boat ad against Obama could spell disaster for McCain

John McCain has said time and time again that he wants to run a respectable campaign, which is why he should denounce the new - and possibly illegal - Swift Boat attack ad against Obama,
Obama's campaign responded to the ad by sending a letter to the Justice Department charging that the backers are violating criminal law and urging an investigation.... "We urge and expect the Department of Justice to fulfill its commitment to take prompt, vigorous action to enforce against criminal violations of the campaign finance laws," [Obama attorney] Bauer wrote in his letter.

Separately, Obama's attorneys are demanding that television stations spike the spot. They say the ad is "demonstrably false" and labeled it a "crude, disreputable and malicious attempt to link Sen. Obama to domestic terrorist activities."
By now we should realize that John McCain didn't mean it when he said he wants to run a respectable campaign: if that was truly the case, he wouldn't be allowing surrogates like Texas billionaire Harold Simmons (yes, the same guy who helped pay for the Swift Boat ads that attacked Kerry's military record), to pour millions of dollars into a smear campaign like this.

But John McCain has already run ads trying to portray Obama as the anti-christ, and hired second Swift-boater to his campaign team, so why stop there?

Attack ad commits typical fallacies

Typical of such attacks, the ad focuses more on Ayers than Obama, as if by tearing down the straw man of Ayers, they could do the same with Obama.

But truth in advertising - or lack thereof - never stopped ads like this from being effective, and clearly that's what his group is counting on.

Furthermore, if Simmons has such a beef against Ayers, one has to wonder why he bothers including Obama in the message at all; Obama was a mere 6 years old when these crimes were committed by Ayers. Desperate for an attack? They must be if this is all they can find.

The ad tries to claim that because Ayers committed crimes, and Obama knows Ayers, that Obama is somehow tied to these crimes. This is a type of formal fallacy : Ayers is guilty of x. Obama knows Ayers. Therefore Obama is guilty of x.

But being illogical never stopped a smear campaign from running. It never stopped the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry's record.

One could just as easily make an ad attacking McCain for being friends with Ralph Reed, who was caught scamming money from evangelical Christians with Jack Abramhoff. Should McCain be considered guilty because of his association with Reed? Actually if McCain continues to allow ads like this to run, he may find himself having to answer uncomfortable questions like this.

How it could come back to bite McCain


Barack Obama has shown he is not afraid to hit back hard if he is attacked. He won't be the one starting the fight, but he's certainly will not be afraid to finish it.

This is dangerous area for John McCain, because he's got real skeletons in his closet. McCain benefits at least as much as Obama from a smear-free campaign, but apparently McCain's republican masters don't know how to run any other kind of campaign: they only know how to run a dirty one.

Its too bad for John McCain, because when Obama hits back he might hit back hard. That means all John McCain's past sins are fair game, and John should be really worried about that because unlike Barack Obama, McCain's sins are well documented and real, not the kind of innuendo being used in the Ayers spot.

Does McCain's campaign team really want to see TV ads recounting episodes like his cheating on his wife, or being investigated by the Senate ethics committee for corruption as one of the Keating Five? American taxpayers lost billions, while the millionaire John McCain reaped the rewards. Does McCain really want America to be reminded of this shameful past?

McCain's shady past makes it all the more bizarre they would "go there" with Swift boat style attacks: do they think Obama won't hit back? If there is one thing Democrats learned since Kerry lost and Howard Dean took over the DNC, its that we won't back down from a fight.

The alternative is that McCain's campaign truly didn't know about the Simmons swift boat attack against Obama - in which case, if John McCain wants to avoid a can of whoop-ass being opened on him by Obama, he should be the gentleman he portrays himself as and condemn both Simmons and the vile ad he created.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Can McCain's performance at Saddleback Church hurt him?

The mainstream media seem to agree the major difference between Barack Obama and John McCain at Rick Warren's Leadership and Compassion Forum was a difference of style, Obama cast as the more meditative and nuanced candidate, and John McCain ans the blunt, "straight-talking" candidate.

At first you might think the event was a "no-brainer" for John McCain: he needs to motivate a lackluster Republican base if he wants to win in November. But the problem with that, has has to do with the fact the GOP base today does not look the same as it did 4 years ago.

A Friendly Crowd for McCain

In general, its true: this was John McCain's audience before he even walked into the room. Most in this group already support his candidacy by virtue of the fact he is a Republican; however, there are many evangelicals who have cast doubt McCain, Dr. James Doson being one of them.

John McCain did what he thought he must: provide the prerequisite answers to issues of social conservatism that he has been wishy-washy about in the past.

McCain treated it like an easy pop-quiz, but is it really that simple?

John McCain has often tried to cast himself as a moderate - and I don't doubt he'll continue to do that as the election draws near - but at this forum, John McCain chose to cast himself emphatically as a social conservative. How long will it take for the press to remember that in 2001, he thought about switching to the Democratic Party, and in 2004 even considered running with John Kerry as VP?

Fluffing his conservative credentials isn't the only problem for John McCain.

John McCain is not the 100% social conservative he is trying to make himself out to be. His quasi-liberal tendencies is one reason that the Republican base is still not enthusiastic about him as a candidate. But McCain needs this base demographic, so its not surprising that he did his best to pander to the crowd as much as possible, going so far as to say he would support a constitutional amendment to keep same sex couples from wedding.

Sound like the "Maverick" "Bi-Partisan" or "Moderate" John McCain that people like Joe Lieberman like to praise? Hardly.

And that leads to the other problem John McCain created for himself by embracing his answers too enthusiastically: all those moderate voters and swing voters who could go either way hear "I will be just like Bush on your Social Conservative issues." In other words, this socially conservative audience is the only one that matters to McCain... the rest of the country can take a hike?

The problems don't end there for McCain


The GOP base has veered off course since Bush's second term, and is disenchanted after republican cronies like Ralph Reed and Jack Ambramhoff were caught scamming them. At the same time, global climate change was fast becoming an important issue for the younger evangelicals. The result for the the GOP: evangelical voters either dropped out of the political process all together or - worse - they converted to the Democrat side.

So when John McCain walked into that room of evangelical values voters thinking "I've got this in the bag, the script is practically written for me," is ignoring the fact this crowd is not the same as 4 years ago: they are no longer as loyal to the GOP and a great many of them are even backing a Democrat.

Who listened closely to Jeff Warren's introduction?

Pastor Rick affirmed a shift in political evangelicalism by saying "We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics." He continued,
"We've got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other and we need to restore civility in our civil discourse and that's the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum."
And here is where we get to one of McCain's biggest problems: he didn't listen to Rick Warren's introduction. People are tired of "my way or the highway" one sided politics. Don't be mistaken by the enthusiasm of the audience, Obama's inroads into this demographic is a good reason for the GOP to worry.

If the objective of the forum was to restore a sense of civility to politics, and a sense of collaboration and compromise toward solving our biggest problems together, then Barack Obama succeeded in doing just that: he showed the audience that he will bring them to the table and include them in the debate.

And judging by the cheers Barack got from the crowd, a great many liked his message. In an election cycle where even top republicans won't be attending their party convention , it behooves McCain not to be overly confident about getting the party base support the same way Bush did.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Mr. Rove's dirty little fingerprints

Where is Rove? Is he secretly pulling the strings behind McCain's campaign?

Close observers of John McCain's behavior might have noticed some changes in his demeanor recently: his outpouring of humor and his self-deprecating so what if I like Abba, I don't like all that popular music like Mr. Celebrity over there, manner.

Recall what Mr. Rove is good at: personality molding. Remember that he took a wealthy, Connecticut-born son of a former president and turned him into a "texas cowboy." Recall the debates in which we all thought John Kerry kicked George Bush's butt, and recall how georgie boy just shrugged and smirked his way thought the entire thing: almost belittling the process. The funny alpha male.

And now John McCain answers questions about the Iraq surplus, by changing the subject to his bad taste in music. Sound familiar?

They say Rove is "out the the country," - hiding from his subpoena? Why isn't that front-page news, BTW?

We know that Karl Rove admits he works "informally" for the McCain campaign. We are beginning to see the telltale signs of his hand at work: questioning Barack's patriotism, blind accusations about how "far left" liberals are out to destroy your way of life.

Yep, it seems like Karl Rove is back behind the scenes, coaching McCain on his demeanor, giving him some jokes... and telling him to indulge the vicious whisper campaigns by people like Jerome Corsi, and his new book, which CNN says "included several documented falshoods":
Asked by the Associated Press earlier Friday what he though of author Jerome Corsi's new book, "The Obama Nation," McCain said, "gotta keep your sense of humor."
Later on, McCain's campaign claimed the old man "didn't hear" the question, which makes me think "Then why did he answer, and what did he think he was talking about?"

Now, the McCain campaign says they have "no comment" on the book.
The symmetry to the Bush campaign is all too familiar, but I will give all that I am able to help Democrats open up a can of whoop-ass on Karle Rove, the RNC and John McCain.

Where oh where, are you Karl - come out, come out, wherever you are!

:D

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Firefighters Back Obama, Criticize McCain

In case you missed it this morning, the Firefighters Union endorsement of Barack Obama for president is great news, and a significant challenge to John McCain.

CNN reports today that the Union endorsed Obama because of his support of collective bargaining:
The union chose to back Obama over John McCain because of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s support of collective bargaining, which gives workers the right to jointly work with their employers to negotiate hours, salaries, benefits and overall working conditions, IAFF spokesman Scott Treibitz said.
In the coming days, I believe it won't only be firefighters who come out endorsing Obama, but other first responders as well. Our nation's first responders like EMT's, Firemen, and Police Officers are our nation's most significant protection: In an emergency they arrive first to help, and as we saw in 9/11 they sacrifice life and limb to do so. And yet, with all their fear-mongering about Sept 11th what who really stands up for our first responders?
"On every issue important to fire fighters Senator Obama is and has been in our corner," [IAFF president] Schaitberger said. "We can't overlook Senator McCain's service to our country, but we also can't overlook his poor record on issues critical to the financial security of our 290,000 members."
It is unconscionable the way the Republican Party has treated our first responders, standing in the way of bargaining rights, better health benefits, and other basic necessities. While GOP candidate John McCain likes to talk tough about war and sacrifice, his actions and those of his party have shown us they are hollow words, unsupported by reality.

Friday, August 8, 2008

A New Tea Party

"No Taxation Without Representation!" patriots yelled, as they dumped valuable imported tea into the harbor to protest paying taxes to an elitist government that ceased to represent them.

In my mind, the idea of a New Tea Party has resonance today: we are once again at a point in our history where the divide between rich and poor has grown, and our government no longer represents us.

Our taxes are supposed to earn us a seat at the table. Our taxes are also the lifeblood of our economy, in that they sustain the infrastructure we use to make money. Our roads, our schools, our military, our colleges, our communities themselves are the means we use to earn wealth and achieve the American Dream.

The justification for Fair Taxes for rich and poor alike is simple: the more you use the resources of our country to earn your wealth, the more you pay to use those resources: things like roads, staff, buildings, ports, etc...

Republican talking heads say Fair Taxes somehow hurt our economy and run against free markets, but isn't it a simple law of economics that you can't get something for nothing? Would you buy a membership to a country club, and not expect to have some of it go toward maintaining the pool you use?

At this period in time, The American Dream is an impossibility for most of us. A small cabal of the wealthiest people in this country have effectively purchased our government right out from under us. The economic foundation of our unique American Promise is eroding. We are rapidly becoming colonists in a land we no longer own, and under a government that no longer represents us.

So when someone tells you Democrats are going to raise your taxes, you can always tell them this: It's time for the rest to pay their Fair Share.

If they don't, we have a proud tradition in this country of throwing off tyranny. We've done it before and we'll do it again. This time, it will be a Tea Party for the new Millennium, as we re-evaluate our citizen status and our role in a global community: not as colonists, but as full participants.

Best,
D. Tree

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

What Does the GOP Fear Most? Confident Dems

The latest GOP ploy to get media attention revolves around an attempt to spin Barack Obama as "too arrogant" to be president.

If clinging to comments made by Barack Obama in a closed door House session is any indication of how well we're doing in this election, my advice to the Democratic Party is this: We have them on the ropes, keep on doing it.

The supposed damning comments? Barack quoted Speaker Pelosi saying "This is the moment... the world has been waiting for."

Desperate for the spotlight, the Grand Old Party is now claiming these words of confidence by Barack Obama are in fact "arrogant."
The Republican National Committee circulated the comments to reporters under the banner, "Barack Obama audacity watch." John McCain's presidential campaign also forwarded the comments with the subject line, "wow."
Let me tell you something: as a Democrat who believes in holding strong to our progressive values I am sick and tired of Democrats who let the GOP bully them around.

Yes, the world awaits America's return to a position of leadership rather than the rogue demagoguery of the Republicans. Should anyone be surprised? Perhaps the ones most surprised is the GOP itself, who somehow think they are God's gift to the free world.

Indeed, if anyone has a brand for arrogance its the GOP. And yet, all they seem to be able to do is call Dems "elitists." They use the word "liberal" like its an epithet.

We should be proud of our progressive values. These are the values that propel societies into the future. The conservative values of the GOP are the values that hold us back from progress; back from change. Their lack of leadership has plummeted our economy into debt and the world into chaos.

One has to wonder at the irony of Republicans who care only about tax cuts for the richest 5% of this country, calling us "elitists." One has to wonder further if they misunderstand the meaning of the word "arrogance." Are they forgetting the arrogance of Bush and McCain eating birthday cake as the victims of Hurricane Katrina died in the Superdome?

What about the arrogance of invading Iraq and believing we would be greeted as liberators as John McCain and Dick Cheney have said.

How about the arrogance of president Bush standing before the American people telling us we should be "more of an ownership society," as we plunge into debt, lose out homes, and the economy tanks?

How about the arrogance of one man, John McCain: who sees Americans suffering and clamoring for change - yet has the audacity to spend millions of his corporate lobbyist money, convincing us we need nothing more than 4 more years of the same?.

Arrogance, thy name is John McCain, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and your gang of crooked and greedy cronies. There's no chance in hell this Democrat is going to stand by and allow another 4 years of my life to be wasted away under republican rule.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Sen Chuck Hagel: McCain Ad Attacking Obama Irresponsible

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who accompanied Obama on his middle east trip Criticized John McCain for his latest attack ad insinuating Obama disrespected troops by not visiting a military hospital in Germany.
Obama's campaign called the new accusation "wildly inappropriate."

[Chuck Hagel] agreed, saying on Face The Nation that the GOP's presumptive nominee is "treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives, and when we start to get into 'You're less patriotic than me, I'm more patriotic.'

"They're better off to focus on policy differences," he said.

"It's just not responsible to be saying things like that, again, if for no other reason than for the good of this country and the world.

"One of these two men, on January 20th of next year, is going to have to bring this country together, and the world, to deal with huge problems. I think the next president is going to inherit an inventory of challenges as big as Franklin Roosevelt inherited on March 4, 1933."
As an unabashed liberal, I admit I have my own misgivings about beefing up your war credentials with a republican Senator alongside you. But as a Democrat, I've always had some respect for republicans like Hagel, who have openly criticized the neocon policies of Bush & Cheney.

And yet as I ponder my candidate's apparent move to the right on military issues, I realize 2 things that give me confidence:

#1, The Core Values in Obama's foreign policy are still liberal: war is not the only way to solve problems, and economic and cultural exchange fosters stability. What is different from previous Democratic candidates, is that he talks about increasing our military in an almost Reagan kind of way. Obama is not going to be pinned down as other Democrats have been before him, as being weak on military issues. That is something Democrats need to re-brand themselves on, if we are to win this election.

#2, Obama plans to go aggressively into deep-red republican territory, competing in traditionally red states for the first time in a generation. The general election campaign has just yet begun, and we have yet to see the candidates fully engage each other on the ground. And when it comes time for Obama to swing down into those traditionally republican strongholds, he's going to come armed with a tough plan to rebuild our military and take the fight to Al Qeada in Afghanistan/Pakiston.

Sometimes I wonder if I even sound like a Democrat anymore :-) Then I remember that the New Democratic majority is a coalition of many different people. OK, I can compromise a bit on this. In a big tent, we all have to learn how to make temporary compromises in exchange for support in the future. I have an idea what kinds of things I am willing to compromise on, what about all of you?

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Welfare to Work: Myths

My fellow Democrats,

Since social justice is an integral part of our party platform, and in the interest of making sure we are all armed with accurate information about public safety net programs like welfare, I thought I'd post this reference sheet from the American Psychological Association:

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages


Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget


Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent


Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White


Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family


Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line


Finally, the APA goes further to suggest some recommendations for making the family safety net called "welfare" a more successful program:

1. Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.

2. Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.

3. Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.

4. States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.

5. States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.

6. States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.
Thank you for your time and for all that you are doing to help us win in November!

Best,
D. Tree

Greens as the Next Liberal Majority?

For this Forum topic on the Environment, I would like to share something of a personal belief - a little "speculative politics."

If all indications are to be taken seriously, there is a strong likelihood that our climate is on the verge of a change that could be catastrophic to us.

As ocean levels rise and local climates change, we should prepare ourselves for mass population displacements, health crisis, and civil unrest around the world.

The danger is very real. The effects possibly as catastrophic as a WMD attack. Our civilization may well be threatened. In order to survive these changes, I believe a new global plurality will emerge. If ever there was a time for the Green movement to become a viable political force we may be about to witness it.

"How," Do you ask?

It began more than 40 years ago when the conservative movement coalesced around a long-term strategy to dominate our country's political system. In the 90's in Congress, and on to Bush/Cheney in the White House in 2000, they finally achieved their goal.

But what did they do with their power? The abused it. They forgot the fundamental tenet of our government system: checks and balances.

No democracy can survive without a healthy opposition party. The GOP took their dominance over our system and used it for greed, and incompetently made a mess of our economy in the process. Not to mention the thousands of brave soldiers killed. And yes, even the attack on 9/11 lies at your feet George Bush and Dick Cheney. You had a warning and chose not to act.

GOP strategists say they have a "brand" problem. Well, they're right: the country has just about had it with the governing practices of the Republican Party.

By all predictions, the party who wins this election in 2008 will win by a landslide, and as disaffected republicans, independents and re-inspired liberals coalesce around a new majority, Democrats will come to a similar fork in the road: how will we share our power?

I for one, have had it with the GOP. If the Democratic Party can house as complex and diverse (and divergent) group of people as it appears to be doing, then we will have our new coalition. After a time we will become the de facto status quo.

But we will need to foster an opposition party, and personally I'd rather it was another party beside sthe GOP.

If the Greens were to fill that vacuum of power, then by definition the Democratic Party will become the new conservative party. The very definition of "conservatism" would change, the "brand" of the GOP relegated to the radical fringes with as much power as any third party.

Stranger things have happened, and who knows - we don't know what catastrophic climate change will do to us - but if we don't start taking the threat as seriously as we do the threat of terrorism, there may be no chance for us at all.

Peace,
D. Tree

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Obama's Plan to End the Iraq War

There seems to be some lingering confusion over Senator Barack Obama's plan to end the Iraw War, so without further ado, and in an effort to promote accuracy when debating these topics on Partybuilder, here is the official plan:

"A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal:"

I. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war.

The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - more than 7 years after the war began.

II. A residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.

Obama will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

On a basic level, the difference between John McCain & George Bush's plans for Iraq, compared to Barack Obama's is this: Bush & McCain have a plan for STAYING in Iraq, and Obama has a plan for LEAVING.

Only one of these people will be giving a new mission to our military; that of ending this war. Without a new mission, there will be NO end in sight.

I can see how people want more details - especially people who are uncertain about or critical of Obama in general - however, we must remember this is a general election, and it would be political suicide to commit to more details at this time.

We have an election to win, and subtlety and nuance must sometimes be left for a later day. We must come together around the general terms of Obama's plan and in that sense it is as different from McCain's as night is from day.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Newsweek: Obama the "True Realist" on Foreign Policy

He's been called a naive idealist. But in terms of foreign policy, he's the true realist in the race.
Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria wrote these words today in a very interesting piece on Barack Obama's "Realist" foreign policy ideas. In the article, Zakaria argues that while the Republicans criticize Obama as having "naive" ideas, it may be the republicans who are naive in the end:
Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist.
Zakaria goes on to describe how out-of-touch conservative leaders are with the world, and the way it works.
Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways.
The article concludes by contrasting the very different world-views of Obama and McCain, concluding that Obama's ideas will carry us forward:
In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology - "temperament." McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system.... America's job is to push these progressive forces forward.... Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.
Click Here to read the entire article.

Best,
D. Tree

Friday, July 18, 2008

The "Unconventional" Candidate

Barack Obama, while having a liberal voting record, is known to work alongside, and be respected by, his republican colleagues.

Indeed, it is hard to paint Obama with the broad strokes of "liberalism" and "conservatism." I believe the reason for this has much to do with how our traditional notions "left" and "right" are in a state of transformation.

Obama is perhaps the first major candidate to come out of a "post framing" progressive movement. Traditional liberal ideas are presented differently than in the past, and communicated with a sensitivity toward voters with both conservative and liberal values.

(for anyone interested in the recent history behind all this, please check out Rockridge Institute: LINK )

Obama is also unconventional because of his family values, which are indeed more conservative than previous Democrat candidates.

Furthermore, Obama has an established track record of working *with* conservatives across the aisle in order to accomplish common goals. Bill Dickson's recent post about the "Accidental Surrogate" is very informative in this respect: LINK

Also, Obama's passing of historic civil rights legislation while an Illinois Senator is the perfect example of how he works with both sides, to accomplish traditionally progressive goals. In the case of the civil rights legislation, his bill was passed unanimously among both Democrats and Republicans. Since then, his legislation has been adopted in 4 different states.

That is really unprecedented! Remember folks, this guy has 12 years legislative experience under his belt, and is also an expert on Constitutional Law. He was president of the Harvard Law review for gosh-sakes! This is a very accomplished and intelligent person with a track record of getting things done and working with very diverse groups of people.

His track record backs up his words about how he will bring these same changes to Washington.

(boy, am i tired of people saying he has not track record of working across the aisle!)

So what does that mean for those of us who are hardcore liberals? (and being formerly registered as Green, I count myself in that group) It means we are going to have to do two things in order to act in the spirit of change Obama is talking about: We as liberals are going to have to acknowledge that we haven't always been 100% right about everything (LOL, that can be hard to do), and we are also going to have to be willing to compromise a bit and give some space to our conservative brethren so they can at least participate in the debate.

That's my thought for the day about Obama and how he seems to be tacking to what people describe as "the center."

Peace, and thanks for all that you do.

D. tree

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Does John McCain even understand what MONEY is?

One of the best things about getting my monthly subscription to Rolling Stone, other than the no-holds-barred political journalism, is reading the latest installment of Get Your War On, a brilliant comic strip by David Rees.

So after taking a couple weeks off from PB, I thought I'd start some new posts with a little tidbit from this month's issue of Rolling Stone (sorry, only text posted since this comic is not online yet):
Picture this: 3 office workers sit around a break room table, conversing and having coffee. Here's what they are saying to each other:

Woman 1: Did you see that John and Cindy McCain are carrying more than $200,000 in credit card debt?

Man: Goddamn, I knew they loved the Iraq War, but I didn't realize they were paying for it themselves.

Woman 2: McCain admits he doesn't "understand economics." Do you think it's possible he doesn't even understand what MONEY is?"
To enjoy more of David Rees' insightful humor, please check out his website here, and thanks to all the hard working Democrats out there doing their best to help us win this historic election!

Best,
D. Tree

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Barack & Michelle: Soccer Mom and Dad :-)

I normally wouldn't post something so "cutesy" but I watched this video today and couldn't help but smile.... so I thought why not share it.

If you haven't seen this nifty little video of Barack and Michelle attending their child's soccer game, click the picture below to check it out.


Viewing this video reminded me of that fateful speech, in which Michelle talked about how proud she was to be an American (you know, the one where people twisted her words to make it sound like she was saying she'd never been proud before?)

Well, in that speech what moved me was hearing her talk about how committed and involved Barack is a a father. She talked about how despite the grueling campaign, Barack had *never* missed a parent-teacher conference or a birthday for one of his daughters.

Seeing Barack and Michelle enjoy some time together as a family, watching the soccer game, and playfully joking with each other, really brought a smile to my face.

I like seeing how much they enjoy each other's company, how comfortable they are with each other, how they smile at each other, and how much they genuinely love each other.

This is possibly the next first family of the United States, and I couldn't think of a finer example. It's a far cry from the family life I had growing up, but in many ways they represent the kind of family I always wished I had.

Please click the picture to check out the video, and enjoy!