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.