Talking Points Memo has a nice wrap-up of the Palin lie that she continues to beat:
Actually, Congress put the kibosh on the Bridge to Nowhere back in November 2005. Since Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was then head of the Senate Appropriations Committee he was able to force a compromise in which the earmark for the bridge was killed but Alaska got to hold on to the money -- some $442 million of federal tax dollars.
Fast forward to November 2006. That's when Sarah Palin was running as a staunch supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere -- that is, after the feds had themselves already said 'No Thanks.'
In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. So by the time Palin got into office it was clear that not only was the first Bridge earmark killed but that Congress was not going to be ponying up any more money. That meant that Alaska was going to have to pick up the tab all on its own. So since she couldn't pay for it with the federal pork barrel, in September 2007, Palin officially halted the project which was then a state project since Congress had said 'Thanks. But no thanks' two years earlier.
She couldn't say 'No Thanks' because Congress had already said 'Forget It'.
Still with me?
So the money Palin sent back to Washington? Well, she didn't. She kept the money for other bridges and roads in Alaska.
So, to boil it all down, Congress pulled the plug on the Bridge to Nowhere in 2005. Palin was still for it in 2006. And when she finally ended the project because Congress had cut off funding, instead of saying 'No Thanks' she actually said 'Thanks!' because instead of sending the money back to Washington she kept it all in Juneau.
So what does this all mean and why the todo?
Conservatives, if you truly want someone who is going to hold down spending this is but one example of where Sarah is not your gal. Leaving Wasilla $20 million in debt after getting buckets of pork is another example.
We are not talking concern trolling because us folks on the other side of the aisle don't like wasteful spending either. That's just one reason why we are against the money pit in Iraq (remember that issue?)
Yeah, politicians stretch the facts all the time but this one is so transparent and blatant it stands out as a major league insult to our collective intelligences.
So to paraphrase John McCain, would you rather win the election instead of cut spending?
Finally some sign that the press might be prying open the lid on the Pandora's Box known as Sarah Palin.
Today Michael Kinsley on the TIME site takes a look at the job Sarah Palin as governor. She may have been runner up as Miss Alaska but she is the Queen of Pork.
Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
And for those of you who long for a tax cutter and turn red at every move from Jim Doyle, how would you like to have this kind of state government:
Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 21/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.
And over the conservative blogs and among the pundits that are against the windfall profits tax:
One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall-profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad and also on the theory that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells at more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.
Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.
So conservatives, maybe you should rethink your choice. Sure politicians lie, but she has become the Babe Ruth of untruthfulness.
You all scream and clap when she blears out her lines about planes and bridges and chefs, but these are all fabrications and Barack Obama sponsoring nothing in the Senate. She would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and it turns out she is not only lying to us but she's lying to you.
The jet was purchased by unpopular Republican governor Frank Murkowski; it had become a major issue in Alaska politics years before Palin’s ran for governor in 2006. (The jet was already an active issue in the 2004 state campaign.) During her gubernatorial campaign, Palin did pledge to sell the plane—but so did the other major candidates, in both major parties. (Murkowski finished a distant third in the 2006 GOP primary, behind Palin and John Binkley. Binkley had also pledged to sell the plane. In the general election, Palin’s Democratic opponent, Tony Knowles, had pledged he would sell the plane too.) Meanwhile, trying to sell the plane on eBay wasn’t a hockey mom’s savvy idea; it was standard practice in Alaska. According to Nexis, the first mention of eBay in this context came after the campaign was over, when Palin formally put the jet up for sale. This was part of Kyle Hopkins’ report in the Anchorage Daily News:
HOPKINS (12/13/06): The state's chief procurement officer, Vern Jones, said it's not unusual for Alaska to sell big-ticket items on eBay because the site is cheap and has a big audience.
It cost the state a few hundred dollars to sell an old state ferry, The Bartlett, for $389,500 in 2003, he said. "They got more for that then they expected."
Tuesday night, the state was auctioning 38 items on the site, including three aircraft—two Super Cubs and a Cessna. Two of the planes have already reached the minimum bids set by the state, meaning Jones expects them to sell for sure.
Selling assets on eBay was standard practice for the state; it wasn’t the hockey mom’s kitchen-table-in-a-small-town idea. And uh-oh! In this case, the eBay gambit turned out to be a bad idea for the state. No suitable bid came in for the jet, and Palin changed course in April 2007, putting the plane up for sale through a conventional airplane broker. The plane was finally unloaded in August 2007—at a substantial loss. (Murkowski had purchased the plane for $2.6 million. McCain’s latest howler to the side, it sold for $2.1 million.)
Meanwhile, the state had continued to pay a $62,500 quarterly note on the plane during the months when Palin’s eBay gambit failed. Using eBay had sometimes worked in the past, but it failed when the hockey mom tried it for this major asset; the “pitbull in lipstick” forgets to say that when she pimps her brilliant maneuver. And McCain misstated the basic facts when he pimped Palin’s brilliance last week. No, she didn’t sell it on eBay. And no, it wasn’t sold at a profit.
So mark the day on your calendars, if you will. And I should also qualify my title, in that the money would not actually be headed to MPS:
The Kern Family Foundation will provide $1 million to help bring college graduates involved with Teach for America into Milwaukee Public Schools classrooms by next fall, the foundation announced today. [. . .]
Teach for America leaders have given an initial approval to opening operations in Milwaukee with the goal of putting 30 teachers in MPS classrooms by next fall and 30 more by September 2010. But that is contingent on other pieces of the plan falling into place, including approval by the School Board and raising enough money by early October to pay for the first three years of the program.
Under normal circumstances, I would celebrate anyone willing to invest in MPS and invest in new, quality teachers in MPS. But I think something like The New Teacher Project is a much better way to go than Teach for America. MPS currently partners with several local universities to offer post-grad internships to people whose majors were not education, and to career-switchers who want to fight the good fight--those I also support. But TFA is, in fact, decidedly bad for schools. Anna, a New York City math teacher blogging at Feministe, explains why, in a post unambiguously titled "Why I Hate Teach for America":
At my school, a small public high school in Brooklyn, New York, well over half of the teachers at the school are Teaching Fellows, and, at least in the three years I have been at the school, the longest any of us has stayed (yet) is three years. A few of us are starting our fourth.
And this sucks for our students. I mean, it really, really sucks. It sucks to come back to school and have to have yet another first-year-teacher as a teacher. It sucks to have six different advisory teachers in four years (the case with my old advisory). It sucks to have no continuity from year to year. It sucks for the ninth grade math teacher you really liked to disappear by the time you are in eleventh grade and wanted to ask for some extra help before the PSATs. It sucks to slowly get the impression that teaching anywhere else, or doing anything else for a job is better than staying here and working with you. It sucks to get abandoned year after year after year by young, enthusiastic teachers who saw teaching in the inner city as something great to put on that law school application. [. . .]
Which is why I hate Teach for America. [. . .] TFA members are not required by Teach for America to pursue a masters in education (which, especially if you do not have an undergraduate degree in education is required to become permanently certified in most states), although some of the states where TFA has program sites require teachers to at least begin taking graduate courses as part of their alternative certification requirements. They don’t require teachers to take the steps to become permanently certified because there is no expectation that their teachers will stay in teaching once their two-year resume-building experience is over. How do I know? Because it’s on their website!
I'm eliding some of the best parts, and there is much much more after I left off. But the point is simple: Teach for America parachutes temps into schools instead of finding long-term, committed teachers. TFA is, as she suggests, much more a line on the resume or an entry in the vitae than it is a way to solve the teaching shortage in the country's most needy districts. (I was surprised--astounded, really--to read that MPS is claiming to have only 68 long-term subs in full-time positions this year, out of probably close to 6,000 spots.)
Statistics for urban districts are not much more encouraging for teachers trained the traditional way--something like half of all new teachers bail for the suburbs or different careers in five years. But TFA makes such impermanence explicit.
One of the things that sticks with me from my teacher training came not from the college classroom at all, but from some besuited motivational speaker hired to entertain the troops on the organizational day before school started the year I did an internship at Beloit Memorial High School. I remember nothing of the man's talk except this idea: In my career, I will teach thousands of students. But each one of those students will have only one 9th-grade English teacher (to pick something from my current roster). How do you think the students feel to know that their sole 9th-grade English teacher is doing the 00's equivalent of bumming around Europe, slumming a bit until taking on the MBA?
So my message to the Board, which will have to approve all of this before the TFA temps can parachute in for a year or two of "experience," is this: Be careful. Is an investment in such a transparently temporary band-aid going to do anything to address the educational distress in this city? I suspect not--though the prospect of some more warm bodies will likely be too tempting to pass up.
Yeah, I am an unabashed liberal and Obama supporter who cannot find a single redeeming quality about Sarah Palin.
With that out of the way, as much as I strain and grunt, I cannot find a single morsel of truth in her speech in the Twin Cities and now on the trail.
Help me out. Could any one of you out there give me one single bit of fact beyond the five kids that is emanating from her lipsticked mouth?
Maybe. But my bet is that for any tidbit of veracity there were at least five outright lies.
You might think it's cute. You might think the ticket is getting away with something.
But it is pretty sad when a campaign cannot play straight with the voters and instead has to offer up this distraction. This really indicates a huge lack of respect for the voters.
All Politics is reporting the schedule for three upcoming public hearings regarding the county budget:
The budget hearings will be Sept. 10 at Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road; Sept. 16 at Kosciuszko Community Center, 2201 [S.] Seventh St.; and Sept. 18 at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center, 1531 W. Vliet St. All hearings run from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
This is the opportunity for the citizens to make their opinions heard before the County Board. County Executive Scott Walker already held his non-listening sessions and doesn't give a fig about what the people wants. He is only interested in what he thinks would help him as he gears up for another run for governor.
The budget battle will be fought the same way it has for the past six years. At the County Board level. You know the County Board. They're the people that have had to fix all of his previous budget proposals. They're the ones that gave the county a $7 million surplus.
I encourage everyone to attend, and let the board know that Walker's political interests aren't in the best interest of the county, and that they need to preserve the vital services the county provides, like burying the indigent, public transportation, and support for the disabled, the elderly and the poor.
A chart in yesterday's New York Times proves what a dismal failure the right wing's fairy tale abstinence only policy in particular and opposition to birth control in general has been to our country and to the young girls who have to live with the consequences.
Click here to access the piece by Charles Blow and pull up the chart under multimedia on the left.
With some graphic help the chart show lists countries of the world sorted under columns for teen births per 1,000 for 1970 and 1998, teenage abortions per 1,000 and teen sex by percentages.
The US has a high percentage of teens having sex, but there are some with higher.
It's the other columns that point up to the failure of our approach. In all countries births per thousand have fallen since 1970. In the US they have fallen by about 75%.
But look down the list. In almost all countries the rate of teen pregnancy fell by half or more, except in Catholic countries. Granted the numbers are smaller but in Ireland they actually rose.
These numbers tell us a lot. They tell us that as a country we have to thing more pro-actively about birth control and sex education. I know what's going on in many little heads. "We already shove birth control down kindergarteners' throats." We obviously are doing a bad job of it or no job. In the more open Danish society with kids having more sex than here, the teen birth rate is a minescule 8.1 per 1,000. Heck, many of these kids could be married.
These numbers also tell us about yet another failed conservative policy. In this case we have to do more than just tell kids to keep their knees together.
Yet another failed policy that joins the trash pile of others -- the Iraq invasion, deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy, mindless tax cutting. On top of that they want us to go to so-called "consumer-based health care," another faux-populist lame-brained idea that has worked no where on a mass scale and is simply another means to transfer wealth upward.
Yet another failed policy that tells us what this election is all about -- taking away the keys of government from conservatives and letting folks from the reality based side drive.
We all know that the Republican ticket of McCain-Palin lies (the jet lie, the bridge lie, the taxes lie, and on and on). We all know that they they steal, such as using the music of Jackson Browne and Heart against the expressed wishes (and politics!) of the artists. We all know that they question Democrats' patriotism pretty much every time they open their mouths.
Days before September 11, on the same morning that John McCain and Barack Obama released a joint statement pledging to avoid politics in light of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks, McCain's campaign accused Democrats of throwing away 12,000 American flags.
"The campaign says the flags were recovered from Invesco Field after the Democrats concluded their convention there," Fox News reported, "and they are going to be used as part of the warm-up ceremonies before McCain takes the stage" for a rally in Colorado Springs, Col.
But according to a senior official involved in organizing the Democratic convention, the McCain camp is simply lying about the flags.
"All of the flags at Invesco were picked up and put in bags and into storage, along with the unused flags and campaign signs. The flags were going to be donated, and the signs were going to be sent out to be used elsewhere," the official said.
Amazing, isn't it? The McCain campaign stole the Obama campaign's flags, lied about where they came from and what Obama's campaign was going to do with them, and by doing so implied that Obama hates the flag and American.
That is shameless. More than shameless, really--base, crass, and criminal. But then again, this is your modern Republican Party. Congrats, my conservative readers--you're about to vote for a ticket with worse ethics than Nixon or your average carjacker.
UPDATED to add that the FOXNews reporter running with this story is Carl Cameron, who famously was reprimanded for just making stuff up about John Kerry in 2004.
Don't know why this didn't make it into the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but the national media got a real taste of Ozaukee County hospitality, intelligence and self preservation.
Hundreds of angry people in this small town outside Milwaukee taunted reporters and TV crews traveling with Sen. John McCain on Friday, chanting "Be fair!" and pointing fingers at a pack of journalists as they booed loudly.
On the first leg of the "McCain Street USA" tour -- which will take the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to small towns across the heartland -- the 30 or so reporters and crew were walking back to their buses to join the McCain motorcade when hundreds of townspeople started yelling.
"Stop lying! You are all liars! Tell the truth!" one woman yelled from the front of the pack.
The crowd was not menacing or threatening, but was clearly angry.
How ironic. After just being treated to about 15 minutes of non-stop lying by Caribou Barbie about how she stopped the bridge to nowhere when she didn't, and how she fought pork but gobbled it down to point of elevated cholesterol, the crowd demanded that the press should stop doing the job that the McCain didn't do in the first place. Don't forget that McCain as well was serving up whoppers (do you want fries with that?) in front of the Chocolate Factory.
News to you folks. As much as you desperately want to love these two the lies won't clean up the economy, make Washington run better or get us an energy policy. Yeah, politicians can stretch things but this duo does hits prevarication homers while others just bunt.
There is this freedom of the press thing in the Constitution. It can be threatened by more than just the government, and that includes a sector of the population that demands their right to not know.
by bert OK, fine, let’s mock the “above my pay grade” statement by Barack Obama and then coo and awe at Sarah Palin’s Down syndrome baby that she chose to raise. But, then, let’s get real.
The Republicans cater to those who are devoted to the cause of making abortions illegal for everyone. That devotion is a force the GOP can harness for their own interests. So, of course, from the St. Paul convention these abortion opponents were fed jokes about the “pay grade” line. That attacks the belief that questions about the nature of life are profound and deserve some awe and humility.
It panders to the type of Christian who embraces the religion because it gives him or her the opposite of awe and humility: it supplies a clippable, refrigerator-door recipe for quick Truth. Nothing is profound, unless you are going to hell. And life begins when sperm hits egg. Next question.
The overweening praise of a party leader who is raising a Down syndrome baby also throws a bone to the anti-abortion movement. Not as nice as merely mocking their sinful enemies with the ‘pay grade’ thing, this praise in effect thumps an accusing index finger in the chest of any other couple who did not do this when they learned their fetus was not healthy. We all know the unspoken accusation: murder.
The reason this anti-abortion movement is exploited is that the movement is impassioned. Those who don’t believe as they do – many would personally not choose or have not chosen an abortion themselves – are not as hot-blooded. The choice people might be unsure about what’s right in all situations, given all the other factors at play. Why don't we give the poor people faced with these awful decisions the freedom to do so privately, they say. I’m like that.
We can all imagine a couple with a pregnancy that learns after those early tests that there is something wrong with the woman’s fetus. Picture them around a kitchen table or talking while lying in their dark bedroom at night. They might even be in the rectory of a liberal church struggling for an answer with a minister. Why God? Is it right to call any human defective? Can I pay for a decent level of care? Can I handle this? Adoption? Is it fair to my other children?
Republicans are telling us our government should use its power to arrest those pregnant people if and when their struggling produces a decision to abort. Get the government in there with its wiretaps and tasers around that kitchen table too. These people are plotting a murder. At the very least, this couple should be arrested and prosecuted like every other murderer if they act on this decision. Once the woman does the perp walk on TV with the orange jail suit, the AM radio shows should also work their listeners into outrage about her. Fire up the base.
If a Republican rolls their eyes at this and says that is not what all these messages mean, they are nevertheless happy that "the base" mistakenly thinks that is what they mean.
Remember the folks who invaded and attacked that poor family of the irreparably vegetative Terry Schiavo? I only now see that throughout this campaign the Republicans have been telling us this is what government itself should do. It is only since Sarah Palin arrived that they started having such a good time in telling us. Her truth is marching on, and all that.
Last night we heard John McCain explain how the disaster of the past eight years must of been perpetrated by someone else other than the Republicans. Kind of like the plot of Fight Club, where Ed Norton's character finds out he is really beating himself up, it will be Republicans vs themselves saying they promise they won't screw up another four years. The first rule of fight club is not to talk about fight club.
Charlie Black doing business in the back of the StraightTalk Express
Here is yet another example of how John McCain's promises of last night ring hollow. Meet:
Charlie Black
Charlie Black of BKSH & Associates, a Bush Pioneer in 2004, is perhaps the most experienced and respected Republican lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He is a close friend of former president George H.W. Bush and has served as an adviser to presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, as well as working as official spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
Recent reports about his work for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) observed that, prior to taking a leave of absence, he did a lot of his lobbying work from the back of McCain's campaign bus. He certainly has had a lot of clients to manage, many of whom have pressing business in Washington.[1] Over the years his client list has included Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress[2], Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party[3], the China National Off-Shore Oil Corp[4], Zaire dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and Angolan rebel Jonas Savimbi.[5]
Black has also said that he sees great opportunities for lobbyists in Iraq and has considered opening up a branch of his office there. "Is there too much cronyism?" he asked, referring to Iraq. "I just wish I could find the cronies."[6]
For a complete look at Charlie Black's lobbying activities, please visit the non-partisan Center For Responsive Politics' money-in-politics database.
[1] Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists," The Washington Post, February 22, 2008.
[2] Kate Zernike, "'Steady Hand' Helps McCain On a New Path," The New York Times, April 13, 2008.
[3] Jim McElhatton and Jerry Seper, "McCain Advisers Tied to Foreign Lobbying," The Washington Times, April 11, 2008.
[4] Tory Newmyer and Kate Ackley, "K Street Files," Roll Call, July 18, 2005.
One could imagine the gnome from hell Karl Rove rubbing his fat paws over his ingenuity in getting war hero John McCain to pass on buddy Joe Lieberman for the circus clown Sarah Palin. In retrospect one could ponder the missed opportunity however, of if the idea is to pick a woman to sop up Hillary voters while Rove didn't pick Condie. That could have been a two-fer.
But no there is evidence that the election Rove needs to win to avoid prison time may be slipping away and that the Hillary herd is not turning in McCain's direction:
Sandy Goodman was deeply disappointed when Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't get the Democratic nomination, then again when she was bypassed for the VP spot. So Goodman, a longtime Florida Democrat, flirted with thoughts of shunning Barack Obama, and perhaps even voting Republican.
Then John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and suddenly things became clear to Goodman: The Republicans had no place for her.
What? The evil genius is loosing his magic?
Evidence so far shows that Palin is not drawing a lot of support from voters outside the Republican base.
An ABC News poll released Friday found the selection of Palin makes people likelier to vote for McCain by just 6 percentage points _ half the 12-point margin by which Sen. Joe Biden makes them more likely to support Obama.
And as for Clinton supporters, eight in 10 said they'd vote for Obama in November, according to a Gallup Poll conducted last weekend after McCain announced his selection of Palin.
Sorry Karl. Women are not dumb. Well, maybe we can think of one.
Coming up to bat next in the McCain all-star K-Street Team and batting right (they all bat right) is the recently renowned -- thanks to the muck up in the Republic of Georgia -- Randy Scheunemann (nice pose to the right by the way). The problem here is our State Department should be conducting foreign relations, not hired guns like Scheuemann -- as last month's events prove.
From McCain's Lobbyists A foreign policy advisor to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign who heads Scheunemann & Associates, has worked on behalf of numerous high profile clients, including the National Rifle Association, Lockheed Martin and BP. However, it is his work for Texas businessman Stephen Payne that has garnered the most attention.
Two of Payne’s firms, Worldwide Strategic Partners Inc. and the Caspian Alliance, paid Scheunemann to lobby Congress, the State Department and the National Security Council on their behalf in connection to energy issues.[1] According to The Sunday Times of London, Payne offered to give the former president of Kyrgyzstan access to President Bush and Vice President Cheney in exchange for a $250,000 donation to Bush’s presidential library and a $450,000 payment to his lobbying firm.[2]
Payne was recorded as saying that Scheunemann had been on his payroll for five of the past eight years.[3] His work with Baltic countries has also included efforts on behalf of Georgia, which paid another Scheunemann firm, Orion Strategies, to help the former Soviet republic win admission to NATO. The firm met or spoke to McCain and his staff dozens of times between 2001 and 2008, and made regular political contributions to McCain’s campaign and PAC.
The hard work apparently paid off: In 2006, McCain co-sponsored legislation encouraging Georgia’s admission to NATO, and he has been a vocal supporter of the country during his presidential campaign.[4] Scheunemann was also a prominent supporter of invading Iraq, having served as a board member of the Project for a New American Century and a founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.[5]
For a complete look at Randy Scheunemann’s lobbying activities, please visit the non-partisan Center For Responsive Politics’ money-in-politics database.
[1] Pete Yost, “McCain adviser lobbied for Stephen Payne,” The Associated Press, July 21, 2008.
[2] Daniel Foggo and Steven Swinford, “President Bush Lobbyist Stephen Payne In ‘Bribes’ Row Quits,” The Sunday Times Of London, July 20, 2008.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mark Benjamin, “McCain: To Russia, Without Love,” Salon.com, June 9, 2008, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/09/mccain/print.html.
[5] Peter Slevin, “Randy Scheunemann: McCain Adviser Campaigned for War,” Washingtonpost.com, June 17, 2008, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/17/randy_scheunemann_mccain_advis.html
While listening to the snarky, classless, braying of Sarah Palin talking about John McCain fighting for you and standing up to the special interests, let's take a look at who in fact is serving on the McCain campaign staff.
As you read through the bio, connect the dots and color in the hypocrisy of the speech.
Partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort (and Jeffery Dahmer look-alike), currently serves as Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign manager. (He managed McCain's 2000 campaign as well.) A former aide in the Reagan administration and the deputy manager of Sen. Bob Dole's (R-KS) 1996 campaign, Davis' dual role as a political operative and as a lobbyist has caused controversy. During the 2000 campaign, critics noted that two of the companies his firm represented, SBC Communications and Comsat, had controversial mergers pending at the Federal Communications Commission. The Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain chaired at the time, oversees the FCC. Davis tenure as head of the McCain-affiliated Reform Institute, where he solicited tens of thousands of dollars in contributions for the Institute from communications companies, has also come under scrutiny. Davis earned $110,000 a year from the Institute while still serving as McCain top political advisor.[1]
Davis has faced other controversies as well. During the current campaign, rivals accused him of self-dealing, noting that the McCain campaign had hired a company he partly owns, 3eDC, to provide Internet services.[2] Davis did not initially disclose his interest to McCain.[3] Davis also came under fire recently when it was revealed that he had arranged a 2006 meeting between McCain and Russian aluminum magnate OlegDeripaska.[4] Deripaska, critics noted, is not only one of the richest men in Russia and an ally of Vladimir Putin, but has also been linked to organized crime and had his American visa revoked. Nevertheless, Deripaska is not the only shady figure to benefit from close relations with Davis. Davis Manafort has also done political consulting for former Ukrainian Prime Minister ViktorYanukovich, who had close ties to Putin and was defeated in that country's 2004 Orange Revolution. Other recent lobbying clients include Verizon, GTECH, and Airborne Express.[5]
For a complete look at Rick Davis' lobbying activities, please visit the non-partisan Center For Responsive Politics' money-in-politics database.
[1] Lisa Lerer, "Ex-Reformer McCain Depends on Lobbyists," Politico, July 11, 2007.
[2] Michael Cooper, "Savior or Machiavelli, McCain Aide Carries On," The New York Times, October 23, 2007.
[3] Edward T. Pound, "Troublesome Resumes," U.S. News & World Report, May 28, 2007.
[4] Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John Solomon, "Aide Helped Controversial Russian Meet McCain," January 25, 2008.
[5] U.S. Secretary of the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed May 13, 2008.
There is evidence that Navy Captain McCain is turning into Captain Queeg.
For someone who was famously cozy with the press, the GOP presidential nominee is starting to lash out at his friends in the press, largely through surrogate attack hounds. But sometimes when you take up with a woman, you break up with your buddies because they don't approve of your current squeeze. That woman in question is of course Sarah Palin.
And shockingly, per the Joe Klein piece on the Time magazine blog, they are on to her:
(I)t is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God.
I'm actually pulling from the end of Klein's post. He starts it off talking about how the McCain campaign staff is getting awfully testy about the press committing (to throw back at Sykes) flagrant acts of journalism.
No wonder McCain's posse is mad. The wonderfully hardwired Republican party as they always do during elections keep repeating the lines about Palin being a tax cutter, a maverick and a pork fighter. They are good at boiling down things to simple and effective talking points.
But it turns out she not only can bring home the bacon, she can fry it up in the pan. She could let her husband let him not forget he's a man, but Palin is having a feud with his mother.
Soon the press will get around to telling us that Palin is nothing but a typical burrow and spend Republican.
The GOP can't have their talking points derailed. More and more we are learning the Staighttalk Express runs on methane. My God, then they'd have to talk about the issues and we can't have that.
They will do all they can to entreat to the American public about how mean the media is, and with any luck the good folks in the press will stand their ground and do their jobs.
UPDATE -- CNN has more on the bullying by the GOP. Also, one of the 20 years olds from the McCain is getting snippy right now with Chris Matthews on Hardball. And Matthews is calling out him and a Utah congressman on the politics of the pick. This is going to get interesting to watch the McCain self-immolation.
Um, just thinking Charlie, if it is really terrible that the J-S and all those other guys covered a “family problem” of a candidate, then should you at the same time be doing five blog posts and “open up the phone lines” on this private matter within a half-hour of starting your high-wattage program this morning?
Have you heard the suggestion -- what was it again? -- from the opposing candidate for the sake of this family. Oh yea, I remember now. Back off.
Nobody seems to do hubris like conservative Republicans. David Frum, on the other hand, cautions why they'd better get some perspective (I'd rather they wouldn't).
"Can we conservatives please stop kidding ourselves about Barack Obama's "qualifications"? Yes, if I had been a Democratic donor back in 2006, I'd sure worry about whether Barack Obama had what it took to be president. That was before he took on the toughest political operation in America, before he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton, before he won 18 million primary votes.
Obama's nomination was not handed to him. He fought hard for it and won against the odds. "Qualifications" predict achievement. Once you have achieved, it doesn't matter what your qualifications are. Who cares whether the guy who built a big company from nothing didn't have much of a resume when he started? But if you are applying to run a big company built by somebody else, the resume matters ... The worst mistake in any fight is to under-estimate your opponent's abilities. Look what happened to the people who under-estimated Reagan.
If conservatives are to have any hope in the coming weeks, we should wake up to the fact that we face in Barack Obama a formidable man, who appeals to something important and deep in the American electorate. He's not a superman, he has vulnerabilities, he can be beaten. But he won't be beaten until we who are trying to beat him understand why and how he has come so far."
For conservatives, as we know, perspective is not their long suit. More goodies in that post.
Mike Huckabee’s on Fox News right now. The takeaway? Palin received more votes as a mayoral candidate in Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden did for President. Shazam!
That's a clever talking point, but it is sadly false.
In New Hampshire alone this year, Biden pulled in 638 votes, even though he had already dropped out before the contest. Palin was elected as mayor in 1996 with 616 votes.
Go further in the primaries, and you see that in the second non-caucus state, South Carolina, Biden got even more votes--694 of them. I could go on: Just here in Wisconsin, a full month after Biden dropped out of the race, he got 755 votes.
I guess that's just one of many, many lies being circulated now about Sarah Palin.
One of the central themes of the Sarah Palin pick from the McCain camplaign and the people that love it is that Gov. Sarah Palin is a bold reformer, who said "thanks but no thanks" to the celebrated bridge to nowhere.
Turns out the last point is a big fat lie, as laid out by the sagely Bob Somerby:
Palin was elected governor in November 2006. One year earlier, in November 2005, the “bridge to nowhere” earmark ceased to exist. The New York Times ran a news report by Carl Hulse under the headline, “Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress.” (There had actually been two “bridges to nowhere,” though one had gotten the bulk of the mocking publicity). Here’s how Hulse began:
HULSE (11/17/05): Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.
Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as ''bridges to nowhere'' because of the remote territory and small populations involved.
The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.
Palin had nothing to do with this act by the Congress, which occurred thirteen months before she took office. (Palin was elected in November 2006, took office the following month.) But this congressional action, in November 2005, cancelled the original earmark, which had directed the state of Alaska to use those particular federal funds to build that particular bridge. Under the terms of this new act, the state would still receive the funds—but the state could now use the money as it pleased. It could use the money to build the bridges. Or it could spend it on something else.
Again, this all happened thirteen months before Palin became governor. And let’s make it very, very clear: Congress stopped playing a role in this matter that day, in November 2005. From that point on, no one had to “tell Congress” anything about the Bridge to Nowhere, because Congress had removed itself from decision-making about the project. Congress had stopped directing how those funds should be used. In November 2005.
Two years later, in September 2007, Palin finally decided to use those funds for other state projects, not for the Bridges to Nowhere. But this had absolutely nothing to do with “telling Congress” anything. With her baldly deceptive, self-glorying statement, Palin is making voters think that she somehow stood up to the Congress—put a stop to their wasteful spending, told them to take their bridge and shove it. In fact, she did nothing of the kind. As best, she’s baldly misleading the public. At worst, she’s lying through her teeth.
Sorry, but Palin “told Congress” nothing at all about the Bridge to Nowhere. Today, she’s telling the public a lie, about her own moral greatness. But this is the way our brightest liberal site explained this latest act of deception.
Stuff like this makes one wonder how well the McCain campaign vetted Palin, and if, is he ready to lead?
One of the reasons why people suggest that candidates for president ought to have experience is so that we can judge what they will do in some other situation based on what they have done in previous, similar situations. The first big decision any nominee makes is to select a running mate. Now that both major-party candidates have made their choices, let's see what that says about the way they will govern.
1. Who wants all the information before making a decision? Perhaps the single most damning thing about John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is that she was not fully vetted. In the six months since he wrapped up the nomination and developed his first list of possible second fiddles, no one from McCain's team, apparently, ever visited Alaska until this weekend, and we know McCain spent only about 15 minutes with Palin prior to Thursday when he offered her the job. On the other hand, we know that Obama's vetting was so thorough that Virginia Sentaor Jim Webb opted out of the tedious process. Chet Edwards describes the nature of the vetting here. McCain of course has a tendency to make decisions first and ask questions later--it's part of his personal philosophy--and we may well see him grow to regret making this one without enough though. Winner? Obama.
2. Who's willing to go against the party? John McCain, who claims to be a "maverick," wanted to select former Democrat Joe Lieberman to be his vice president. It's pretty clear from the available evidence that Lieberman was Plan A, but the Republican Party was basically having none of it. McCain had a number of good options as Plan B, but McCain bent to the will of his Party in abandoning Lieberman. Barack Obama, on the other hand, got a ton of pressure from all over the Democratic Party--the party that, in many ways, is still the party of Bill Clinton--to go with a "unity" ticket by selecting Hillary Clinton. Obama knew he wouldn't be able to work with her, so he made a choice that was good for him--Joe Biden--and bucked the party. In future decisions, we could expect Obama to go against the party when necessary, and McCain to whither in the face of pressure. Winner? Obama.
3. Who's reaching out to the middle? There's the story going around that Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator." What a coincidence, Obama clinches the nomination and gets graced with that title, just like John Kerry in 2004. Do you really think that, on balance, Obama is more liberal than, say, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold? Vermont's (Socialst Party!) Bernie Sanders? Ted Kennedy? Regardless, Obama did move toward the center with his choice of Joe Biden. McCain, on the other hand, after being denied the choice of Lieberman, picked an extremist instead. Palin is at the far right of the Republican Party, and there is little doubt that her selection is designed to appease the Dobson-loving mouth-foaming social conservative wing of the party. This suggests that in the future Obama would look toward the center when appropriate, while McCain feels the need placate the extremist wing of his party. Winner? Obama.
5. Who's really looking for clean government? Twenty years ago, one of the times Joe Biden quoted British MP Neil Kinnock, he didn't credit the man. No question, it was plagiarism, and he was rightly run out of that primary. Since then, Biden has gaffed his way through two more decades of campaigns and pressers. But no one has ever tried to claim that Biden abuses power. Sure, he stands up for the home-state credit-card industry over the little guy (grrrr!), but you can't say he's not relatively--to use one of Biden's choice words--clean. Palin was, as noted, not fully vetted and remains in the middle of a scandal with active and open investigations going on. I encourage you to read Josh Marshall's piece on what all that entails and why it matters. McCain could have picked someone without the whiff of scandal about her (though Carly Fiorina, the next woman on the list, is not scandal-free either). So in years to come, we can imagine the McCain will be unafraid to install the scandal-plagued in the highest offices in the nation, while Obama will not. Winner? Obama.
6. Who wants the best that's out there? I know that one of the rationales or narratives being floated about the Palin pick is that Joe Biden has to be very careful in his debate with her not to come off as a bully. Personlly, I think it's ridiculous to claim that a woman can't compete head-to-head in a debate with a man--it's not only insulting to women, but it was proven decidedly false this spring when Hillary Clinton more than held her own against Barack Obama. Problem is, Sarah Palin may really not be the sharpest crayon in the box. Of course she's not going to have the depth of knowledge that the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee does on certain matters, but she also apparently thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the founding fathers (see question 11). If McCain's people didn't even turn up this Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly's group) questionnaire during the vetting--I suppose McCain has expressed trouble over doing a Google before--that's one bad thing. If they did see this, and still opted for Palin, then that really says something about McCain's standards. Winner? Obama.
In the end, we have to look back on what both candidates said about who they wanted as vice president. Obama was clear that he wanted someone who would not just win him an election but who could help him govern by challenging him, debating him, and working through the issues of the day with him. Biden fits that bill. McCain always said he wanted someone who was qualified to take over, given that he is "older than dirt." Even conservatives are noting that "McCain is essentially telling the world that he doesn't really need a Vice President. [. . .] McCain has thus made a purely political play without regard for the governance concerns." He's clearly not showing the judgment and seriousness a president needs.
McCain has failed the first test. There's no way we can reward him with the presidency.
Also, bonus video that perhaps explains McCain's choice:
I didn't want to give it any credence, but I watched it--pay attention to the way he fiddles with his wedding ring while appraising Palin's, er, assets.
For those of you old enough to remember, Harry and Louise were a fake couple on the TeeVee, trotted out by the insurance industry to scuttle Hillary Clinton's health care plan.
"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a [swing state]. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."
Rove singled out [a] governor [. . .] as an example of such a pick.
"With all due respect again to [the governor], [she]'s been a governor for three years, [she]'s been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that [she]'s done. [She] was mayor of the [a small city]"
Rove continued: "So if he were to pick [the governor], it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States."
Okay, I'm just kidding. Rove was really talking about Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia who made it to the short list but did not actually become the Barack Obama's running mate. Instead, Obama apparently made a non-political choice--to use Rove's formulation--one who instead would be a good vice president as opposed to a good campaign move.
One of the things I found most interesting last week about the selection of Joe Biden is that in 2016, after (let us hope) two terms of an Obama administration, Biden will be too old to run for president. Obama's selection of Biden does not leave any kind of legacy in terms of who would be the next presumptive Democratic nominee. Again, that's a giant signal that Obama was less concerned with the politics of the selection that with its practicality.
There is no question that the choice of Sarah Palin over the other possible candidates was primarily political. Even in the effusive commentary from the righties locally, there's praise less for Palin's strengths as a pol and more for the way the pick changes the campaign. Whatever. We'll give Palin this week and then see whether, after the convention is over, the shine can stay on that apple.
If I were to have put money on any one candidate that John McCain would not pick, it would have been Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Three reasons: 1) She deflates McCain's most effective attack against Obama, the idea that he does not have the experience to be president. 2) She is under investigation, literally, right now (even if it all turns out clean, the Alaska Republican Party right now is a hotbed of indictments and corruption and picking someone up from the middle of all that seems ... odd). 3) McCain apparently had met her in person exactly once.
Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden had none of those pitfalls--it wasn't Chris Dodd, who's got something mortgagy that can get played to death in the media; it wasn't Evan Bayh, whose voting record is a lot closer to McCain's than Obama's is; it wasn't Sam Nunn, who was far outside Obama's circle; and so on. In the end, Obama selected a friend, a long-time (well, four-year) ally, someone with the chops and wide-ranging expertise to both challenge and support Obama during key deliberations. In the end, I suppose you could say Joe Biden is exactly the opposite of Sarah Palin--which makes it strange that so many of the conservatives who nodded sagely that of course Biden was a reasonable pick for Obama are now ga-ga for Palin.
But in the end what strikes me most is the way the selection of Palin, who is a very far right-wing ideologue, is being celebrated because it connects McCain to his base. My initial reaction, once I knew it was ferreal, was to compare, in my head, Sarah Palin to Wisconsin second-district Representative Tammy Baldwin.
I know, I know, Palin is the only governor of Alaska and Baldwin is one of 435 Representatives. But consider: The population of the 2nd CD is about 670,000 (2000 data) and the population of Alaska is also about 670,000 (2000 data). Palin is a far-right social conservative, and Baldwin is a far-left (by American standards) social liberal. Neither has much foreign policy experience. Palin is a mother of five with a hard-working husband, while Baldwin is, um, not legally married. They are extremely similar cases for decidedly opposite parties.
But what would the reaction have been from the media or the right-wingnuts had Obama gone to his left for a relatively unknown pol like Baldwin? Certainly not the great outpouring of praise and adulation that McCain has gotten for his pick today.
Ah, well, such are the vagaries of the press and the wingers--it's okay if you're a Republican to pick an extremest to succeed you. Indeed, with the Cheney precedent, I suppose now it is expected.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) used the announcement of his vice-presidential pick, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, to blast the experience of his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill), arguing that Sen. Obama has never been the mayor of a 5,000-person town.
"The Presidency of the United States of America is the toughest job on the planet," Sen. McCain said. "And my friends, the best testing ground for that job is being the mayor of a 5,000-person town in Alaska."
Sen. McCain unleashed a savage attack on Sen. Obama, claiming that his Democratic opponent would be "at a loss" when faced with the challenges of running a 5000-person municipality in Alaska.
"Let's say a constituent calls you and says that a caribou has wandered onto his front lawn," he said. "My friends, Barack Obama wouldn't know what to do."
He used the hypothetical situation to draw a sharp contrast with his vice-presidential choice: "Sarah Palin would take out her gun and shoot the caribou."
Mr. McCain said that an understanding of foreign affairs, Congress, and other issues that a president has to deal with is "overrated," adding, "That's what ‘Presidency for Dummies' is for."
While saying that her "vast experience" was the main reason he selected Gov. Palin, Sen. McCain said that she also had the other three qualifications he was looking for in a vice president: "She is pro-life, pro-drilling, and willing to housesit."
(Denver) Was over at Sam's Diner on 15th to again have breakfast with the Morning Joe crew when the news about McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for Veep.
We at the table got to Pat Buchanan as he passed by and of course popped the question about Palin. Pat said the pick shoots the experience that McCain has been trying to make.
Later caught up with Chris Hayes of the Nation. Not only did he think the pick as bizarre, but desperate.
Back in the room watching the introduction, every clay pigeon McCain flung up could be easily shot down by what we heard last night at Invesco.
Nice woman I'm sure. But what is quite clear is that the McCain camplaign has been thrown in a flurry over the convention week and had to come up with the political equivalent of an accordion, with plenty of buttons to push.
Sarah Palin has a compelling story, but every aspect of her personal background points up to glaring deficiencies in McCain's program? She will be able to give a good speech for sure and claim maverick status, but it remains to be seen when the roof comes crashing in from McCain's lobbyist heavy campaign staff.
Remarkable night. Barack Obama dug deep and came up with a speech that was loaded with answers about the questions about his background and ability to lead.
Having been there, the electricity was transmitted to the 70,000 plus crowd by a breath-taking speech, which was the best of Obama's career and perhaps one of the great speeches in American politics (pardon the gushing). There is no way the McCain camplaign will be able to counter the spectacle and heavy meaning of this event.
More than theater, as fine as it was, heading out of Invesco last night were some where around 30,000 Coloradans who are ready to go, work for Obama and win their state.
But of course, the GOP are the masters at the game of lowered expectations.
The buzz around the intertube-weblings is that John McCain has probably selected Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to be his running mate. Here's what we know:
Tim Pawlenty has never even won a majority in his own state
Tim Pawlenty polls horribly in neighboring states that McCain needs if he wants to win
By selecting Pawlenty, McCain is turning his back on [pick one: Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, other] and the millions of voters who supported him in the primaries over John McCain
By selecting Pawlenty, McCain is turning his back on Hillary Clinton and the 18 million Americans (more Americans than voted for any Republican) who feel that it is Hillary's time--not to mention the Clinton-turned-McCain crowd (Debra Bartoshevich and the nutballs at No Quarter)
By selecting Pawlenty, McCain shows that he's [racist/sexist] because he purposely overlooked all the many qualified [minorities/women] in the party
Okay, I admit, some of those are just repackaged critiques of the Biden pick (reuse, reduce, recycle), but if the shoe fits ....
(Of course, I could be wrong and it could be Mitt Romney, the dog-abusing shape-shifter who thinks McCain lacks the temperament to be president. That won't be any fun at all, except for noting that McCain and Romney together probably has a higher net worth than many of the red states that will vote for them. I'll have more comment after work this afternoon once the selection is official ....)
I am required by contract to ask the question "Why is Ann Althouse Wisconsin's most widely-read blogger?" at least twice a year. It's been too long since I have moved to fulfill that part of my contract, so I'm tossing a post together tonight.
I did not ask the question last March, though I sorely wanted to and even have a text file somewhere with the links saved, when Althouse went off on Hillary Clinton's "3 AM" ad. (Watch it on YouTube, here, if you have forgotten it.) There were lots of reasons not to like that ad--for example, the suggestion that Barack Obama is too dumb to know what to do in a crisis; I trust Obama to have the best minds for any emergency on speed dial (perhaps even Senator Clinton herself) and to handle whatever comes up pretty well. It's what all presidents do, the current one excepted, of course.
Yet what Althouse chose to criticize about the ad was, instead, pajamas. Specifically--in two separate posts, no less--she claimed that an image of a sleeping little girl was filmed and arranged on screen just so in order for three letters from the words on her pajamas (the N, I, and G of "Good Night") were on screen. In essence, she claimed--in two separate posts, no less--that the Hillary camp cut an ad calling Barack Obama a nigger.
I think you can see both why I wanted to ask the question related to those posts and why I chose not to goad her any further, especially after it was revealed that the ad used stock footage that was almost a decade old, and not any kind of Reifenstahlian racist camera tricks.
But I ask the question tonight because I note a distinct absence on her blog today of that kind of sleuthery related to a new John McCain ad. (Watch it on YouTube, here.) This is a screenshot of the crucial moment:
You'll note that the McCain campaign has clearly cropped the background at an odd angle, eliminating the first and last letters of the word "change," which, of course, spells HANG. Now, the cropping to get that word seems much more deliberate--though until I hear otherwise, I'm willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt--and the idea of hanging accompanying a photo of an African American man recalls an all too real and all too horrific time in America's recent past.
The threat of lynching is much more disgustingly violent than a mere epithet. Yet Althouse, who spent an awful lot of time and effort--in two separate posts, no less--on an imagined epithet hasn't applied her keen analytical skills to the McCain ad at all. Where are you when we need you, Ann?
"mickey," a conservative par catastrophe, used to comment here from the IP address 216.153.255.145, until he was banned from multiple local right-wing blogs this past spring for being a bit of a jerk and gave up here, too.
"gus" currently comments here from the IP address 216.153.255.145 and is also currently commenting all over the local right-wing blogs, being a bit of a jerk.
I'm not going to say for certain that they're the same person. I just report. You decide.
(Denver) -- Dabbling in the news myself, I know how this business demands conflict.
Unfortunately, this convention is not giving it to them so they have to make it up.
I have yet to make it to the Pepsi Center, being a guest to the Denver and credentials as you would well imagine very much in demand. So to date we have been catching it in group TV watching parties, though we will have the thrill of reaching the Center today.
But one advantage over watching it home is afterwards, catching up with the delegates. And last night the story from all the Hillary delegates is that their hero, who has richly desired the title, brought them on board with the Obama campaign.
I didn't just ask. I probed and all they said was basically "we have to go to work to elect Barack Obama."
Went to a DNC strategy session with Howard Dean, David Plouffe and others from the Obama campaign. According to Dean, "we are coming out of this convention unified, with 99.9% of the delegates behind Obama."
"It seems that the folks on cable don't have much to do," observed the Governor. "Anyone who wants to whine and moan will make it on TV."
Later, went over to the very well attended SEIU health care session and Hillary capped it off with a speech. We ALL rose to our feet to welcome her.
One last thing. We now have lots of concern trolls wringing their hands over Obama's decision to not invite Hillary onto the ticket. Who knows why? But I think we should all know Obama wants to win, and somehow Hillary did not work into the equation. That's politics and as it has been said politics is not beanbag.
Van Mobley from Concordia suggests that McCain should "exploit" Obama's "blunder" of not picking Hillary, and that McCain should pick woman. yeah, that should bandage over his inability to vote for a single woman's health care bill over his entire career in the Senate.
Not often the name Bartoshevich would be imagined as a household name, but that's what the McCain camplaign hopes to have happen with this new ad, featuring the former Clinton delegate from Waterford.
Of course conservative are chortling, but like Ann Richards would say, with McCain's abysmal record voting for woman's health care, "this would be like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders."
Still more confounding is the threat by some of her supporters to defect to John McCain. His campaign’s latest commercial features a grinning Clinton supporter who praises his “maverick, independent streak” as well as his "experience and judgment," and promises that “it’s ok, really” to vote for the Republican. Is this the politics of revenge? Is it the cult of personality? Is it stubborn idiocy?
Whatever else it may be, it is not OK. No, it is emphatically not OK to mislead Senator Clinton’s supporters into lining up behind a candidate whose positions are the opposite of hers, whose judgment on many issues is woefully deficient, and whose maverick independence is no more than a memory.
Senator McCain too deserves to be taken at his word—which makes it all the more astonishing that anyone who claims to have voted for Senator Clinton would consider voting for him. He has declared his firm opposition to reproductive rights and promised to appoint Supreme Court judges who would restrict those rights. He would continue the US occupation of Iraq and may well expand the war to Iran and beyond. He opposes universal health care and denounces Social Security as a “disgrace” that should be privatized. He dropped his principled opposition to the regressive Bush tax cuts and his support of immigration reform to pander to the Republican right.
Speaking of right-wing Republicans, their encouragement of the intransigent Clintonites is a clue for the clueless. The sudden affection lavished on Senator Clinton by neoconservatives and other assorted wingnuts could hardly be more transparent or insincere – or predictable as soon as Senator Obama, their erstwhile favorite, secured the Democratic nomination. Pundits who beseeched Democrats to join the Obama campaign as a crusade to destroy the Clintons now demand respect for her. But their insincerity is blatant. They merely want to exploit her most disappointed supporters, whose eagerness to cooperate in that strategy is mystifying.
If John McCain had released an ad with the script "Hillary's right" about, say, nine months ago, the right wingnuts would have called McCain a Communist and a member of the "Democrat Party" while scuttling off to write another check to Fred Thompson.
Being big fans of Morning Joe, Lana and I were planning to make it over to the remote broadcast over at Sams #3 diner on 15th St. here in Denver. Our hotel was just that close, and having caught that Howard Dean was up we had to shoot over to see if we could catch the Governor. We made it.
Great line-up of guests including Sen. Jim Webb, the affable mayor of Denver John Hickenlooper and Tim Russet's son Luke. Got to joke with Willie Geist about the Brett Favre trade. As McCain campaign guy Rick Schmidt was ambling out wished him luck, and added "sorta."
Had a nice chat with MSNBC commentator, the Rev. Eugene Rivers about Michelle Obama's speech last night. Though he rode Obama a bit hard during the primaries, Rev. Rivers felt that Michelle had definitely turned the corner of public opinion. According to Rivers, "after last night, no one can question Michelle's love of America or her authenticity."
That of course leaves out the McCain camplaign.
Rivers also felt that based on the McCain's status as underdog, the camplaign feels they have no alternative but to attack.
On that note...
As a follow-up, this from Andy Borowitz:
New McCain Ad Attacks Obama Kids Cute, Not Ready to Lead, Ad Claims
In what might be his most controversial attack ad in a campaign dominated by them, presumptive G.O.P. presidential nominee John McCain today launched a new TV spot attacking Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill)'s two children.
According to political insiders, a negative ad targeting a rival's offspring is highly unorthodox, especially when the children in question are under the age of ten.
But after the two Obama kids scored in their performance on national television last night at the Democratic convention, "we had to do something to give the American people some straight talk on those two brats," Sen. McCain said today.
In the ad, which is being broadcast in key swing states, an announcer intones, "They're the cutest children in the world - but are they ready to lead?"
The spot uses visuals to link the two Obama kids to other famously cute kids, such as the young Drew Barrymore and the Cabbage Patch dolls.
The commercial goes on to blast the Obama children for "smiling and giggling but refusing to state their position on offshore oil drilling."
While some critics questioned how well the ad would play in living rooms across America, Sen. McCain defended it, telling reporters, "It played very well in all of my living rooms."
Unlike other posts you may see about the Democratic National Convention in Denver, I am here as a guest and not as a delegate or with blogger/media credentials, so mine will be from a different perspective.
Hit town on Sunday. Don't get me wrong. But as a guest you are on your own somewhat for a political junkie such as I, this town is a buffet of events and goings-on. You just have to figure out what you are going to do.
My wife and I joined up with some 5,000 delegates/media/guests at the Convention Center and partied until 8:00. My wife crashed and after a break, I headed up to the Progressive Democrats of America. Heard California Congress member Barbara Lee talk about health care, chatted with John Nichols about impeachment and listened in on Tom Hayden. As a shocking contrast I wandered into the cigar/martini party hosted by the New Mexico Democratic Party. This is a bttleground state and in talking to the folks in the room they are ready hit it hard for Obama.
Monday was all politics, all day long. Did breakfast with the Wisconsin delegation and from those I talked to people seemed happy with the Biden pick and Hillary supporters generally soothed and on board.
After breakfasy, Lana and I again had to figure out the day. We had a couple of mis-fires, showing up for events that needed pre-registrations. At one point to get around I came across the free bike program and hopped on a two-wheeler to check out some event.
But one of the nice thing about a town with decent mass transit like Denver, we at least didn't waste too much time going from event to event.
We caught the Unventional Women conference at the performing arts center. Hosted by former ambassador Swannee Hunt, got to hear a great loine-up of women politicians including Barbara Boxer and a number of other senators. During the early session with Nancy Pelosi, Code Pink busted into the proceedings.
In the afternoon we hit the Big Tent event which was hosted by Air America and Google. What a line-up! For as much as we could hang for we got to hear Paul Krugman, Jonathan Alter, Arianna Huffington, David Sirrota, Jane Meyer (author of the Dark Side) Ted Sorenson, Markos Moulitsas, Michael Eric Dyson and Thom Hartmann. Rachel Madow popped in briefly.
Watch this spot for YouTubes from the day's events.
Had nice chat with Victor Navasky, founder of The Nation. He explained to me that he saw the internet as channeling readers into the print edition.
On the streets, ran into Ted Sorenson, and we talked about JFK's Wisconsin primary.
After hanging out at the MSNBC set behind the Union Station, we headed over to the convention cneter (not the Pepsi Center where the Democratic Convention took place -- we're being let in on Wednesday). With about another 1,000 people watched Michelle Obama hit it out of the park. On the way back into the hotel, Lana got hit up by a reporter from News Radio TMJ and she got to endorse the great job Michelle did.
When last we checked in on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's chances to be John McCain's running mate, we found that Palwenty was the worst possible choice, poll-wise, for McCain in Wisconsin. (Note the distinct lack of Biden in that polling.)
Pawlenty, on a three-day, two-state swing through Pennsylvania and Ohio that included Saturday stops at a sportsmen's club to discuss the Second Amendment and the economy, thought Obama picked the wrong running mate to support his campaign of change. [. . .]
Pawlenty said he believed Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, would have been a better choice for Obama.
Aside from exhibiting the Petraeus idolatry that we have come to expect from chickenhawks like Pawlenty, he also demonstrates a distinct, shall we say, overwhelming ignorance of what ought to be common knowledge. Military personnel not only are supposed to remain (actually, they are required to remain) apolitical in uniform, but active-duty personnel are forbidden from campaigning for or holding public office.
Pawlenty would be an awesome running mate: a blunderer who tanks McCain's polls in neighboring states, who has never even won a majority in his own state--what's not to love for Democrats?
(On the plus side, even if Tim Pawlenty is not tapped to be co-pilot of the Straight-Down Express campaign, we can always ask him why he didn't criticized John McCain for not choosing Gen. Petraeus.)
I watch way too much TV. Hence, when I see Wisconsin's Debra Bartoshevich in the news AGAIN as The Hillary Democrat Voting For McCain, I cannot help but think of "Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield," a classic episode of "The Simpsons." In that episode, Marge Simpson finds a Chanel suit at an outlet store for an incredible steal of a price. Wearing it, she gets noticed by the crusty uppers of Springfield society women, who normally would not have given Marge a second glance in her usual green tube of a dress. Problem is, there is only the one Chanel suit, so Marge wears it too often, and then starts altering the pieces, and finally she can't pretend anymore and rushes back to the outlet store for another Chanel.
But there is no other Chanel, no matter how many racks she paws through.
Quick: Name another "Clinton Democrat" who supports McCain. Can't do it? That's because a Bartoshevich is hard to find. (The crazies at No Quarter are still at it, and, no doubt, cheering the ad Bartoshevich is appearing in for McCain.) It seems to me that if the Clinton-Democrat-voting-McCain phenomenon is real and widespread, there would be more than one Debra Bartoshevich in the outlet store.
It is, in fact, the political equivalent of a prank legendarily pulled at my high school in which students procured well fewer than 20 live chickens, numbered them 1 through 20 with magic markers (leaving some numbers out), set them loose, and then sat back and gleefully watched as hapless school officials ran around the school searching for the remaining missing chickens that had never actually existed. Nobody knows how much truly dangerous anti-Obama sentiment exists among former Hillary supporters or how many Hillary delegates will vote for John McCain in November (this past June, McCain said that the woman in today's ad, Wisconsin nurse Debra Bartoshevich, was the only Hillary delegate they knew of who was committed to pull the lever for McCain). But I guarantee some of us in the press will spend today haplessly running around looking for more of them out here, to fill out our stories about this ad and the angry-Hillary-brigades-hit-Denver storyline.
(Mental note: Buy chickens and a map to St. Paul for next week.)
Steve Benen also points out that Bartoshevich apparently doesn't read my blog. When I first posted about her here, I couldn't believe that she would support someone as anti-woman and anti-choice as John McCain. And indeed, at today's press conference, Bartoshevich revealed that she has no idea what McCain's position is on choice:
Bartoschevich, who claims to be a pro-choice Democrat, was asked about her concerns about reproductive rights under another pro-life Republican president. "Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions," Bartoschevich said.
Has anyone at the McCain camp bothered to tell Bartoshevich that McCain's position in 1999 was just a temporary dip into the pro-choice pool, and now he's accepting without challenge a Republican Party platform that would prohibit abortions even in the case of rape or incest--something McCain fought against back in 2000?
Now, I know that people enjoy attention, and Bartoshevich has certainly gotten her (and a few other people's) fifteen minutes of fame. But she is being used, badly, by a party and a candidate that stands against everything her preferred candidate--Hillary Clinton--stands proudly for. She needs to get out. Now.
McCain's trigger-happy temperament and reactionary policies offer worse than no change. He is an unstable bridge back not just to Bush policies but to an increasingly distant 20th-century America that is still fighting Red China in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in the cold war.
by folkbum