Great Column in the Huff Post

For those of you interested in God and politics, particularly the religious right, this is a very interesting article.

In order to understand what is truly going on with the McCain campaign right now, and why--in spite of overwhelming evidence that the American people are not responding to it--the Republican nominee seems hellbent on attacking Barack Obama for everything from associations "with a domestic terrorist" to allowing babies to die, as he did yet again in last night's debate, you have to realize that what we are seeing in the Republican party right now is basically a split between thinking, fiscal conservatives and the more moderate of the party who accept most of their precepts, and the religious right wing who have, in effect, seceded from the union already and are trying to take the party with them.

*****
What we're witnessing right now is a fragmenting of the Republican party as the religious right-wing breaks away from the conservative and/or moderate wings of the party. They've had power for a while now, and they don't want to let go. This is part of why there is so much rage and nastiness at their rallies. And you can bet that if John McCain loses, the religious right-wing will say it was because he wasn't fundamentalist ENOUGH, that he didn't push Bill Ayers and ACORN and other wedge issues ENOUGH, that he didn't get mad ENOUGH, and they will back someone wild-eyed enough for them next time--maybe Sarah Palin herself.
--Huffington Post, 10-16-2008

This is really interesting stuff.

For many of us in TEC, I think we see some of this reflected, more recently, in the Anglican Communion. And without naming names, we can feel that finger on our chests generally, but not always, originating south of the equator. We cannot be conservative enough. We cannot be plain reading enough. We cannot ignore diversity or the human condition enough. We cannot hate enough.

I agree that what we are seeing is a wild mitosis of belief where you either tow the right wing line or get out or are forced out; whether we call that orthodoxy, conservatism, fundamentalism. And, as always, this spills over into politics, and the reverse.

Is there such a thing as political fundamentalism? You bet! And this article may call it by another name, but it is alive and mad as hell.

A Couple New Knock Your Socks Off Adds (short)

First one from last night, playing on a cable station after the debate, it is short and very, very moving:



Second, this one for Tom Udall: (hanky alert)

McCain's Non-Vetting has REAL Implications: 'Joe the Plumber' Meets Palins' Problems

John McCain may become the official antonym to the word "vet" as used under this meaning:

2 a: to subject to usually expert appraisal or correction <vet a manuscript> b: to evaluate for possible approval or acceptance <vet the candidates for a position>

It is amazing that the man just cannot get it right, or doesn't care, or has a staff with their head's so completely immersed in the bizarre that self-created media bombs don't even trigger an evacuation notice.

As it turns out, "Joe the Plumber" has a few, um, issues:

1. Joe isn't licensed. Oops.
2. Joe isn't union, and Joe has never completed an apprenticeship program. Tsk, tsk.
3. Joe has a couple of tax leans (big oops).

Joe's claim to fame, of course, was his repeated (and repeated and repeated) mention in last night's debate by John McCain.

As the story goes, Joe was out tossing a football with his kid, and up drives Obama campaigning in his neighborhood. Joe stops tossing the skin and starts asking Obama about his tax plan and the $250K tax line.

Of course, McCain wants to tax Joe, and give relief to the extremely wealthy. Nothing new there. I'm sure the Wall Street gang and the wealthy CEOs expect nothing less. But this isn't something McCain readily admits.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't increase taxes one penny for those making $249,999.99/year. Apparently, Joe doesn't think that if he makes that much he should pay taxes either. Heck, apparently, he doesn't pay his taxes now.

We all know the old story... the more you make, the less you feel you owe. And as McCain said last night, Obama wants to tax those above $250,000.00 and spread it around. One can only wonder what McCain thinks he have been doing historically.

I pay taxes, you pay taxes and yes they get spread around. Alaska doesn't contribute one nickel to the feds, but they get earmarks [c/o Palin and Alaska Senators. In fact, AK just got some more oink bucks from the bailout c/o Alaska Sen. Don Young (Section 504 of the bill). BTW, section 504 basically gives settlement moneys from the pro-oil drilling, benefit receiving, welfare state of Alaska Exxon Valdez spill via income averaging].

I guess Sarah is right. Paying taxes really isn't patriotic since she and Young tend to take, but never give. In light of her AIP support, shucks it fits. Yup, yup.

Obama wants the folks making that $250K and above to increasingly (with increased income) to pay more money to spread around.

I don't see the problem. This problem does bother me though:

First, McCain doesn't vet Palin, or at least he/his campaign did a nasty job of it if they did. Even some in his own party say that the pick was selfish and put the country at risk through his own ambition. Add me to that list from the liberal/progressive side. Her intelligence, her history, her affiliations and her lack of background on issues scares the hell out of me.

And I absolutely despise her environmental stands and buddy, she ain't no hunter of wolves. She approves wolf slaughter, not hunting. At a projected $1.2 million net worth, she and Todd are hardly middle class. Yet to listen to her, she seems to suggest she is. If $1.2 million net worth is middle class, then I just dropped seriously into the destitute class.

Nor is she a subsistence hunter of caribou or moose. If she would forgo hunting, and likewise the profit-making hunters who drive the expedition hunters, perhaps a few wolves could be saved. But heck, she loves her sport and hates wildlife as her record clearly shows. She's a liar and an inciter, and clearly her campaign stops show that.

Second, McCain's campaign did lie in saying that Palin cleared the FBI. The FBI doesn't vet candidates except for security clearances, and the FBI eventually said they did not vet Palin.

I still insist (and have insisted since I commented on it on 9/14), in fact, that both Palin's (because of their activities in the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, AIP--Todd being a member for 7 years, and Sarah's close affiliation--and because of this party's affiliation with other national groups, including some hate groups and racist groups) could likely be on the National Terrorist Watch List.

Wouldn't that just be a kick? Our VP candidate and/or her snowmobiling 'first dude' ( I have to say, the name disgusts me), the inanely stupid hockey mom guilty of ethics violations as Alaska Gov and her hubby tied at the political money-grubbing hip on the U.S. Terrorist Watch List?

Well, apparently, someone else finally got it too:

A charitable characterization of AIP might be "quirky down-home Alaska politics." However, the security processes that govern access to our defense and national security institutions might not look so kindly on Todd Palin's past political associations. Indeed, if Todd Palin were applying for a job in the US government or at a contractor that required access to sensitive classified information -- a security clearance -- he would very likely be ineligible.
--Huffington Post, 10/15/2008

Yeah, it's true. A month after I observed the clear problem with national security, the Huff brought it up. Yeah. Someone at least is doing their homework, albeit pretty late.

I mean hey, if Nelson Mandella was on it (and it took an act of Congress last July to get him off the list), and if Ted Kennedy was on it because of a similarity in names, heck anyone could be on the list which has now spiraled to over a whopping one million names. If the former US Assistant Attorney General (Justice Department), Jim Robinson, landed on the list in 2008, one really has to wonder how much better this Patriot Act-inspired list has been managed.

*****

Sometimes politics is about throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Palin has a longer stick-life than most though a similar IQ to spaghetti. Joe, unfortunately, has probably had close to his 5 minutes of stick-fame. Outing him as an unlicensed plumber and behind in his taxes just isn't all that great. If he was making a national statement about taxes with liens on his home, then perhaps his IQ, too, is spaghetti like Sarah's.

Hey, it doesn't get more spaghetti than that. And it ain't stickin'.

Read the New York Times on Spaghetti-O Joe.

Photo Credit: Jim Young/Reuters

Obama Won: And Your Dog Knows It, Too

Well, well, well. Finally, the debates are over. Thank God.

McCain got some snap in there, alright: The frustration of not being the leader in this campaign while Obama was his normal cool--the guy I WANT next to the nuclear football with Biden staring him in the eyes.

McCain's negative attacks didn't work, in fact, they show they have hurt him/Palin.

Tonight, ironically, McCain said his folks would help special needs families, for instance, like Palin with a son that has Autism. Her son has Down's, not autism. He repeated this error multiple times.

Why in the world do I know more about her than he does? I think I vetted her early on a lot better than he did. In fact, I know I did! And he is proud of her? And she "represents" women (gasp!)?

I'll tell you something. There are two types of people and you can sort them out like this:

There are those that train a dog calmly with a low voice, are gentle, patient, consistent, persistent and have a commanding presence, and those that flail around and scream and yell while the dog basically wonder's what's up and pees on their pant leg from stress and frustration.

Obama is the former, McCain the latter.

For you dog owners, dog show types, rescuers and trainers, you know exactly what I mean.

And if you have a plumber named Joe, might want to rethink that.

If you were listening to CSB (cnet), you heard Joe (that little racist shit) equate Obama to Sammy Davis Jr. by saying they both tap dance. That was enlightening.

But still, we cannot stop.

Work until the polls close Nov. 4th for both the No on 8, and the pro-Obama campaigns.

Then go with friends to watch the results, where, at the end of the evening, barring some terrible unforseen change in the next 19 days, you will go home happily knowing that our country stands a chance for the first time in 8 very long years.

The early results, if we stay on this tract, will be McCain's. They will include the east/south east, then the midwest, then the Rocky Mountain regions. Obama will shine in some of these races, but not until later when some battleground states are counted, and after the polls close in the west which is blue.

So just know that, and don't fret early on.

This will come true if we don't take our eyes off the ball.

Things the MSM Won't Show You On The "R" Word

Mercy.



Go here for the source, a great piece on Daily Kos.

Protecting the Vote: What to Look For, What You Can Do

Harvey Wasserman, a wonderful writer and activist from Ohio who I had the opportunity to work with some years back, made the following statement preceding an interesting talk in Ohio entitled The History of Stolen Elections where he covers 200 years of American voting history in 20 minutes:

The one thing that the American people can say about George W. Bush is that we have never elected him president of the United States.
--Harvey Wasserman

With the situation in a number of states poised to poison our next election, you might find this site not only instructive on the issue, but there is a state-by-state map of the current conditions where problems are known to exist currently, and a way to report abnormalities in your state (click on the link in the first sentence of text to take you to the map).

Current abnormalities are documented in:
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania

If you are a political blogger or a blogger interested in election integrity and/or voter suppression in the United States, please link to this post or to the site itself. This is the only site attempting to consolidate information and act on it.

We know the vote was stolen from Gore in 2000. We know the vote was stolen from Kerry in 2004.

We cannot and must not let this happen again.

No on CA Prop 8

Here is the new commercial for No on Prop 8, and it is a very good one (hat tip to Susan Russell):



Now, please take a moment and donate, no matter how large or small, to get and keep this on the air. This is a good commercial that could help undecided people and others to preserve rights for all.

If you do not have a credit card, they give you the address and provide the reporting form at the bottom to send a check or money order.

It is very important we defeat this bill in CA.

Palin: White House Anons Want Her Off Ticket

I have concluded, based on today's polling, that 43%-45% of Americans don't read, don't have a clue what is going on in the world, don't understand issues, and are flat out nuts. They slam the press for bringing them the truth as though that would somehow invalidate them as humans or (God help em!) indicate they need to do a bit more reading, online or otherwise.

Consider, for instance, this on-online article. This speaks well to the folks I am referencing.

“He's smart, articulate and beguiling but his supporters — his inner circle— are radicals who want revolution,” Billy Benton, 55, an estate agent, said. “I don't know what he was doing in Indonesia all those years — hanging around with Muslim terrorists?” Madeleine Willis, 60, a retired factory worker, asked.

I have been wrong many a time, but not after broad reading to the source on an issue.

It seems to me that we have evolved a cult of anti-intellectual robots that repeat what they hear. We all know where that comes from, without naming them. But it speaks poorly to Americans.

While I am absolutely a progressive liberal in almost all things, I can maintain educated respect for difference of opinion on most with the caveat that:

1. my opponent understands the issue
2. is honest in the use of facts and information
3. isn't into flame-throwing
4. doesn't get personal

I have enormous respect for some that I call opposite advocates, for instance. Those that can legitimately express an equal and well researched opinion. In my neck of the woods, there are few that can qualify for that, but that is because of my age and deep involvement over many years.

I have been involved in local issues of environment and land use for decades. I know (and knew) the people, the background stories, I attended the hearings, and I read the volumes and volumes of documents. Enough, 9 years ago, to fill up 2.5 dumpsters when I cleaned out the storage facility. I have probably that much again, now.

In this election, there have been some startling moves by well known conservatives in terms of the McCain/Palin ticket. The reception to their point of view by Palin supporters, for instance, has been, shall we say, ice cold. And in some cases, their responses have been red hot.

Some, first cautiously supportive of Palin, have come out strongly against her. Why? Well, in a nutshell she is out of her league. She hasn't a clue about the issues that matter. She is not ready to assume the presidency.

To legitimate conservatives, these things do matter.

Many of you here know how I struggled with Obama, especially his energy policy. You encouraged me to look beyond that one point (sort of like anti-choice advocates have to look past that one point to other issues, which some of you have and are doing, likewise).

With that in mind, many conservatives that generally will not stray from the GOP ticket (even when the GOP is neo-con) have come out against Palin, thus against McCain, and some have gone so far as to ask for a replacement VP (though that will never happen).

Consider this video (the real juice starts at about 2:06 or so):



Kathleen Parker is stalwart GOP conservative, and a supporter of both recent Bush runs. She is bright and tenacious and extremely in touch with the conservative end of the spectrum. That should tell you something right there. She is as conservative as it gets short of bolting off the flat earth.

Huge Bad News for McCain Today

Now you can say that the McCain campaign palled around with terrorists (and mean it)! Yes, you too can use those words honestly now. McCain/Terrorist. McCain/Saddam. McCain/Hussein.

Yup, yup.

This is enormously bad for McCain. Hugely bad. Humongously bad. Infinitely bad. Horribly bad. Loose- the-presidency bad.

How do you say, McCain/Saddam Hussein?

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

--Huffington Post, 10/14/08

This is a huge story. Read it here.

Support Families: No On Prop 8

Prior to my separation with my beloved, my employer was prepared to offer insurance to my partner of 17 years. We were a "straight" couple who, by then, had been together for well over a decade--a full three years longer than most marriages survive. Sadly, however, he was unable to be insured due to "existing" health conditions. He is diabetic. I was then allowed to get insurance though I am a cancer survivor. I worked for an international environmental non-profit.

I know full well what it means when your partner was hospitalized and you were given NO right to see or attend to them. I lived it each time he was put in the hospital. It was grueling, hurtful and, in one case, dangerous to him.

Did we have equal rights under the law? No. But we had made the choice not to marry.

This very example is the current status for those in relationships where their state law prohibits marriage because of gender. Currently in California, same gender marriage is allowed. Those choosing to marry have full rights under the law.

Under Prop 8, the right to marry will be taken away, thus equal rights under the law will be lost through amending of the California Constitution to outlaw same gender marriage.

A yes vote on Prop 8 will add discrimination to California's constitution.

Marriage, in and of itself, is not holy. It is holy if the couple, regardless of gender, chose to take their license to a church, synagogue or other religious establishment and ask to be married under the rubric of that establishment's belief or should they otherwise ask clergy to officiate.

A Justice of the Peace can just as easily marry a couple, whether they do or do not believe in God. Will we outlaw marriage of atheists next?

Marriage is about rights. It is optionally blessed through belief.

We step willfully on the rights of others when we subject them to our own standards of legal application as Prop 8 intends to do.

And while this is not about religion or belief, it is by the mere force of the fact that religion seems to believe it has a headlock on marriage. Belief and law, though, are different things.

My belief may allow for multiple wives. The law does not. My belief may call for stoning when certain crimes are committed. The law does not. My belief may require rest on Sunday. The law does not. My belief may require covering of my body from head to toe. The law does not. I may believe it is safe to drive 75. The law doesn't agree.

Belief doesn't belong in law, and for good reason. We are not a theocracy.

Keep church and state separate, keep discrimination out of the law.

Vote no on Prop 8.

The Price We Pay: Theocracy and Prop 8

Theocracy:

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Our country has a dark history when it comes to practicing equal rights. Native Americans, African Americans, women, Irish, Jews, those of Middle Eastern decent, Japanese, those with various types and kinds of disabilities.. the list is long, the history of each group colored with hate by those who would consider them evil, satanic, different, and lessor. The offenders--those that discriminate--claim themselves morally and legally superior.

We like to pretend in the year 2008 that this thinking is gone or passe at best. For a small number of people it is. But our world remains colored with open, debasing and visceral discrimination, secular and not. Those once themselves discriminated against--from all walks of life and all class levels, ethnicities, creeds, colors and cultures--now stand ready to practice a largely theocratically-based form of discrimination against our lgbt friends, neighbors, church members and others. It is wrong and it is extremely dangerous.

The Puritan beginnings of this country--a practicing theocracy--have well survived the impediments of our Constitution. Our nation, perhaps one of the most socially conservative of the "advanced" nations, still dwells ceaselessly on all dimensions of sexuality while suffering the dual standard of commercialism from Sex Wax to cars. A girl or woman is often still accused of being responsible, through their "dress", for their rape. It extends to how we view the environment (the dark forest where evil lurks), and how some believe the nation should be governed, and by whom. Perhaps more important is why, in this context, someone is not fit to lead.

But nothing--nothing--is so sinister--so calculated--so unAmerican and morally berift as the contention that one knows the mind of the unfathomable God and thereby practices both secular and spiritual hate and discrimination against another, regardless of gender, class, creed, culture or color.

I loathe theocracy and this is exactly the basis of California's Proposition 8.

This proposition--one line of law, literally--seeks to amend the California state constitution: Only the marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This proposition supported by clergy of many colors and types, seeks to dispense injustice and create two standards of rights in California as though any religious belief has the legitimate right to do so. The irony of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Roman Catholic Church--each having suffered serious religious and social persecution in this country--which are now coalescing to dispense their version of theocracy upon all of the peoples of California rests piqued to counter persecute in a most calculated way.

Scapegoating, a concept of Biblical origin, is obviously alive and well.

Marriange is NOT a religious contract or venue, it is civil law. One does not go to the church for a divorce, and likewise, not for a marriage. A marriage license is a legal instrument adhering to the state, not the church. NO church is legally required, once a marriage license is obtained by any couple, to "marry" anyone; straight, black, white, gay, Asian, atheist, lesbian, Christian or any other sort or type of human being.

But drafters and supporters of Proposition 8 lie about this either because they can (playing on the ignorance of the public), or because they do not understand the difference between civil law and religion themselves.

From a religious perspective, we do not, in this country, have laws stating what one must or can or cannot believe in. The right to live free of religious persecution is clearly stated in our Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So how is it that religions believe they have the right to limit or dispense secular rights? The practice of theocracy--injecting religious beliefs into law.

This isn't just about whether one believes that lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender folks are living "moral" lives. This is about taking that "moral" judgement and spinning it into the fabric of discrimination via the creation of separate laws for separate groups of people. Some people have "these" rights, others have "these" rights.

As an American, Californian, and a devout Episcopalian, I do not believe my church has the right to call for any discrimination founded in secular law. Period. And shame on those who belong to my church, or any other or for that matter no church, that believes that discrimination is ever acceptable or American or in harmony with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I don't expect anyone to adopt my religious beliefs. One can believe what they will or not. But hands off our state constitution and our federal guarantees of freedom.

No one has the right to limit another's freedom in this country. No one. This is, however--largely in the name of religion--exactly what Prop 8 does.

Don't allow the law to treat people differently. Vote no on Proposition 8.

The Why of What Palin is Doing in Attacking Obama

Much has been said in the last week about the hateful invective continually delivered by Sarah Palin in her campaign stops across the country. She delivers it so cunningly, and so deliberately. Her convention speech reference to "community organizers" gave us a clear picture of her capability to use a scalpel to excise and lay before the public her version of worthy and not, and now we see this applies to evil and terrorism. Palin can elicit strong hate responses, and one can only do that if one can personally connect to the issue themselves.

I have contended--and still hold--that Sarah Palin was chosen as VP to solidify the evangelical vote within the GOP. It was not about attracting the women's vote, though handy she was female. And she has certainly solidified that base. Recent Pew polling (September 9-14, 2008) shows a 10 percent rise in support of McCain by Evangelicals from June 2008 to September 9, 2008.

But Palin has also done something else, as well, and hardly by accident: She is playing on fear, pointing to Obama and saying terrorist in the same sentence. Why? Well consider this Pew chart from 2004:

*****

Now, let's switch gears slightly for a moment to discuss a September 9, 2008 talk given by Jonathan Cohen, Director of Polling, Washington Post. (You tube video in entirety, below.)

According to Cohen (about 16:00), in 2004 terrorism reigned as the issue with voters according to exit polling data. 49% of voters polled indicated this in 2004 election exit polling saying they trusted only George Bush to handle terrorism. 97% of these 49% voted for George Bush. Do the math. That is 48% of the electorate. Bush won against Kerry with 51%, needing only 3% of additional voters (voting on other issues) who did not believe terrorism was the issue to win the election, which he did.

But here is the clincher:

What Cohen says, after this (see point about 17:26), is that "(...) It remains a core GOP belief that they can win on terrorism, and I will get to later McCain's advantage on the issue over Barack Obama..."

Cohen then goes on to cite that as of September 2008, fear of terrorism (domestic) has dropped to almost 1997 levels, levels extent well before 9/11 (19:00), though noting that 2/3 of those polled remain apprehensive about the possibility of another major attack.

Cohen then goes on to show there has been more decoupling between the war on Iraq and the war on terrorism (19:43), noting, nonetheless, that McCain holds a polling advantage on the war on Iraq and on terrorism (21:00), which he says has been a consistent lead... and is a 20 point lead over Obama (this would be part of the post convention polling, which, he suggests, is similar to other polling of late August).

September 9, 2008 Berkeley, CA talk, Jonathan Cohen, Director of Polling, Washington Post.
13:20 about the next 45 days from 9/9/08.

*****

While no one can say for sure what is going on behind the doors of the McCain campaign aside developing scenarios to knock Obama off his game, what people do know is that the McCain campaign, like Obama's, poll constantly. This gives the campaigns information on where they are falling down, where they have a leg up, and can serve as the basis for the tone and issue preference the campaign will set in the immediate and/or long term future. We are talking immediate future now, with 24 days to go.

McCain has nose-dived, is doing poorly in many battleground states, and Palin's favorability ratings have plummeted as well. Obama, depending on the polling, shows a 6 to 11 point national lead, with a commanding number of electoral votes in hand as of today if polling is anywhere near correct.

So, does McCain believe he can harvest votes through Palin's invective about Barrack, using in the same sentence, over and over, Obama and the word terrorist? Of course. Was this just a personal attack? No.

The one area where McCain leads Obama in the polls--and has consistently--is on his credibility and trust on the Iraq war and on terrorism. This is precisely WHY Palin is bringing it up, and why McCain isn't apologizing. It could make or break his presidential bid.

Palin never had to say Obama was of Arab descent. Terrorist and Arab, in the post 9/11 world, go hand in hand and a recent spate of hate crimes against Islamics underlines this, as well as its seeming connection to Palin's rhetoric.

John McCain did correct that notion at one campaign stop--with an audience member accusing Barack of being of Arab descent--but barely. And don't look for other corrections or for Palin to change direction. If it isn't terrorism, it will be another polling vulnerability.

McCain's campaign has rightly come under considerable heat from both the public and media for the oft hate spewing crowd Palin seems to be whipping up for him while he stands doe-eyed behind. And no doubt his campaign is playing from the internet nut playbook which has accused Obama of everything short of being a space alien.

This is nasty politics, but it is politics.

McCain knows he has to pull every single string to hope to unweave the web Obama and his supporters have carefully woven and he, and only he, can make the decision whether a principled loss or an unprincipled stab at winning are more important.

I think we all see what he has concluded.

Palin: The McCain Campaign Takes the High Road (And Other Tall Tales)

I have to admit that reading anything Sarah Palin says these days requires patience. One has to sort out the linguistic idioms, the invariable subject tangents, and only then can one begin to tease the the rare answer from the chaotic explanation.

Somewhere in the folksy whimsy that is Palin lies a calculated liar who weaves stories and connections together to make mittens from lawn chairs. Consider the answer below in response to this question from a reporter as part of a five and a half minute telephone interview with some Alaska reporters:

Q: Governor, so good to hear from you. Do you approve of the way that your campaign has handled themselves here in Alaska? We’ve had a lot of people voice concerns about what they call attacks of good people in our state while you are away.

A: Well I haven’t heard of any attacks on good people in Alaska from our campaign. If you have specifics there, maybe I could answer specifically. But no, in John McCain’s mission here, in taking the high road, as you’re going to see too with a lot of unfair shots he has taken in this campaign with some of his opponents’ supporters, McCain and I taking the high road, being positive. I wouldn’t support nor would I condone taking shots at any good Alaskans. --Alaska Politics, 10/11/2008

This exemplifies well the problem with the entire telephone interview, and there is just so much wrong with this one quote, as with all the others.

For starters, the first two sentences and the last are related. The middle section is not only a bald faced lie, it is completely out of context--almost Rovian in it's rather sinister convolution especially given the last week of attacks by Palin which has driven her supporters to the edge of lucidity, with some tumbling--even sprinting--over.

Almost more astounding is the followup question and answer:

Q: Walt Monegan was called “rogue.” How do you feel about that?

A: Rogue isn’t a negative term when you consider that in a cabinet you need a team effort going forward with a governor’s agenda. And our agenda has been to find efficiencies in every department and make sure that we are serving the people of Alaska to the best of our ability given the resources that we have. And remember I fought very hard to increase funding for state troopers so that we could fill positions there and goals not being met that included not being able to recruit and retain all the state troopers that I wanted to best serve Alaska. That could be characterized I think as a cabinet member who – it’s not a negative term I think -- being rogue in terms of not meeting those goals.

First, the definition of rogue:

1 : vagrant , tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3 : a mischievous person : scamp
4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation [my emphasis]

Clearly, Palin doesn't know what the word means, let alone can she apply any of these in context with the strange middle statement.

Note the same pattern as in the first question: Address the question in the first sentence. Stick something off topic in the middle, muddle it up in Palinesque gibberish, then answer the question with a lie at the end. This is also a Rovian pattern: Up is down, black is white, and war is peace.

Palin calls the "troopergate" investigation "tasergate", something truly Rovian. Palin goes on to say that the report clears her of wrongdoing. Clearly, that is not what the report says, then Palin deflects the subject away from herself to the assertion that Trooper Wooten tasered a child. The investigation wasn't about Wooten tasering anyone. It was about whether Palin abused her power as governor in firing Monahan, Wooten's boss, and whether the governor committed acts in violation of her oath of office.

Semanticist Sam Hyakowa must be speechless, wherever he is.

A Lawyer Reviews the Palin Ethics Report

This makes it pretty easy to understand.

The McCain camp, as usual, blatantly continues to lie about the situation.

First, in a rather bizarre twist, the day before the report was issued, after the Alaska Supremes cleared the way judging against a team of McCain lawyers trying to have the report closed down, the McCain camp basically came out and said that Sarah cleared the hurtles and was innocent. This prior to the release of the report. Now, of course, they say she is still innocent.

Nice try.

Now, of course, they just deny it. I'm waiting for Palin to admonish, "I am not a crook."

Second, they continually refer to the report as a politically influenced report ala Obama. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is absolutely NO evidence anyone from the Obama campaign has attempted to interfere. There is plenty of visible (and invisible) evidence that the McCain campaign has attempted to interfere, by several lawsuits and through a bevy of operatives sent to Alaska early on and who remain.

Third, and something the press reports about half the time, is that the entire body of 8 republicans and 4 democrats signed off unanimously on the report. This is the legislative committee that the Alaska legislature gave the duty to investigate.

Fourth, the press sometimes mentions a three-person personnel panel also doing an investigation. This came after Sarah SUED HERSELF, triggering their involvement. This board can:

1. Work entirely in secret and has no obligation to release ANY information collected to the media or the public or explain how they came to their (future) conclusion.
2. All were appointed by Palin.

Sarah has a problem with truth, that is clear enough. From the Bridge to Nowhere (which, by the way, is not dead... plans and drawings are still moving ahead) and earmarks she said she had no involvement with, denying she was deep in lobbyists, to denying any involvement in making women pay for their rape kits in Wasilla (she signed the budget which included this, so she either is directly lying or didn't bother to read it, neither of which is good). She also has a problem with her taxes--read potential tax fraud. In fact, Palin had a penchance for meeting with big biz hauling lobbyists around with them.

This ambitious woman has left ethics and truth behind in her sprint to the White House. I called Palin a bellicose bully in one of my blog posts, and more and more I find this to be characteristic.

Meanwhile, Obama remains as cool as a cucumber taking the high road, always. Good for him.

UPDATE: Fr. Christian has his own take... and for a chuckle, read it here.

For those reading late tonight...A Prayer for Doggie Parris.

UPDATE: Parris is doing pretty well, still not out of the woods. Keep up the prayers, believe me, we thank you for them.

Can you please hold in your prayers, Parris, a little cattle dog that nearly died on the op table today, but is still alive and being cared for.

I would surely appreciate it, and I know she would too were she able to get to the keyboard...

BREAKING: Alaska Supremes Clear Way for Friday Ethics Report Relese

Read it here from AP.

I will be writing on this tonight to give some background to what I expect will be the result of the inquiry.

Keep in mind, as the McCain campaign has waged war against the release of this report, filing multiple lawsuits, now each negated by the AK courts, the body that is doing the investigation is 8 republicans and four democrats.

Despite the McCain campaign's bizarre assertion, the investigation was NOT political, not influenced by Obama (it began prior to Palin's pick as VP), and if ANYONE wedged a hand into this process, it was clearly the republicans.

Ms. Palin, the Russians are Not Amused!

Sarah Palin has multiply stated that she has experience in foreign affairs because to her west lies Russia. One can see it's far eastern shore from an Alaskan Island. She has also noted that Canada lies to it's east and south.

I haven't read much about the Canadian reaction to this absurd claim, but a Russian, via Pravda, sure didn't mince words:

Sarah Palin, Mrs. Nobody know-it-all shreiking cow from Alaska, the joke of American politics, plied with a couple of vodkas before letting rip in front of incredulous audiences while McCain coos in the background, cuts a ridiculous figure as she strives to be taken seriously. [sic]
--Pravda, 9/12/08

Eh hem. I doubt seriously most U.S. papers would have printed such a letter. Oddly, it would appear, at least in this case, that Pravda practices more of a First Amendment tradition than most of our domestic media.

I will admit to chuckling through the piece. It is worth a read if you are in need of a smile.

Biden Addresses Palin's Comments

Yesterday, I posted about the hate spewing from Sarah Palin and its effects on the GOP "crowd" at rallies. It is inappropriate at any level.

This hate is somehow spilling over onto the press--the "third rail"--as well in a sort of "shoot the messenger" approach, complete, in one case, with a racial epithet:

“Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, ‘Sit down, boy’, Milbank wrote.
--Reuters, 10/7/2008

Biden addressed the issue this morning, in a mild way. Too mild for me, but at least someone addressed it:

"This is beyond disappointing, this is wrong," he [Biden] said at a rally in Tampa, Fla. [parens mine]
--Los Angeles Times, 10/8/2008

Media is generally buzzing about the "that one" statement in last night's debate. In this McCain statement, instead of calling Senator Obama by his name, he referred to him as "that one". Rather a nasty slip for McCain, actually. Later, as Obama outstretched his hand to McCain, McCain turned away. Instead, he shook Cindy McCain's hand.

McCain insiders have admitted that their only hope to win the presidency is to go negative indicating the trouble they know--and we see--is upon them. With one more debate to go, and McCain literally struggling to stay afloat far below Obama, McCain is staying home this weekend to reassess his campaign... or so they say. After his lie of suspending his campaign, who knows what he is really doing.

Palin is, in my opinion, now in dangerous waters as she incites hatred among her God-loving supporters.

Photo credit: Sarah Baxter, Washington, from TimesOnLine

"That One" Won!

Obama kept his line of sight on McCain...

McCain was really demeaning, disrespectful and childish to call Obama "That One".

Obama did a great job.

Who won?

NBC: Obama 60
McCain 40

CBS: Obama: 39
McCain: 27
Undecided: 35

Interestingly, Obama got MUCH higher ratings on who understands their situation:
O: 80%
M: 39%

Palin Supporter Advocates Killing: Palin Over The Top

My worst fears are coming to fruition.

Now that the "R" word is being more discussed by the press (as though it wasn't extent this entire time), Palin is stirring it up on the "sly" through use of words designed to instill fear and hatred. Sadly, it seems to be working for some of her more brain-dead supporters.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.
--Washington Post, October 7, 2008

And did that man get plucked out of the crowd for a talking to by the FBI? Apparently not.

Did Palin correct him? Of course not.

Now imagine someone doing that at an Obama event. Double standard?

Her goal is to foment hate and fear. Apparently, this is what she is good at and used to. And one can only wonder if she learned it at church.

Palin's Wasilla Church, an Assemblies of God church where she attended until just a few years ago from the age of 12, knows a thing or two about advocating hate and fear.

They have had guest speakers who have broadsided Judaism. The church's pastor has laid claims to 911 as a war contending for your faith and has stated that Jesus was in war mode.

The same Pastor has assigned hell to those that didn't vote for Bush later saying it was questionable whether Kerry supporters could enter into heaven. I sure hope someone reports this louse to the IRS. If that isn't supporting a candidate from the podium I don't know what is. And if that isn't instilling hate and fear, I don't know what is.

The trash on the net aimed at Obama is no accident. Some people will believe anything, especially if it suits their hateful or racist purposes. This is precisely why Palin has gone nuclear (or nucular in her pronunciation) in attacking Obama.

I have said it time and time again that Palin is neither qualified to be vice president let alone president and she is an embarrassment to intelligent women, regardless of party. Palin's moral ground has not shifted. Rather, it is just beginning to come into the light and it ain't pretty.

Last spring, McCain said that mudslinging and dirty campaigning wasn't something the public wanted. Apparently he has changed his tune. Please read THIS to get a good feel for what those in campaign positions are now foisting on the public.

Here is McSame vowing to run a clean campaign, as well as his wife doing the same... amid their attack adds:



I can tell you right now that if anyone in the Obama campaign dared do such things they would be fried by the mainstream media. Why is Obama held to a higher standard?

It doesn't get more vicious.

Yes, it angers me to no end. It reminds me of the crowd asking to let a thief go free and for the crucifixion of Christ instead. It's an eerie parallel. Not that I am equating Obama with Christ, it's the crowd that concerns me. A charismatic leader can be a God-send, or stand for evil.

There is a long list of them, historically. We know their names.

Now we can add one more. Sarah Palin.

Here is a rather gruesome, if telling, You Tube video on some of Palin/McSame's supporters. It is jaw-dropping.