Calling Out McCain/Palin On Their Lies

CNN, to their credit, have a fairly powerful piece that takes on the lies of McCain/Palin. Click above to see it.

As I posted to Crooks and Liars, where I first caught this video clip, there needs to be a strong, unified response to this GOP strategy.

When the lies are blatant, reporters and the media need to continually refer to it in their coverage, not just in special features.

What the Obama campaign needs to do

If the Dems had run a similar campaign, there would be a united chorus of ‘liar’ coming out of the GOP. Where are the Democrats on this? How about calling out the GOP on specific, deliberate lies, that keep getting repeated.

Maybe they can start a feature called, GOP lie of the day (or week).

It could be a regular ad that begins like this:

The McCain/Palin campaign, just like the Bush administration, believes that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it to be true.

We believe that candidates should be held accountable for deliberately spreading lies. And we believe if you repeat the truth often enough, lies will be exposed for what they are.

Today, we challenge the following McCain lie:

(30 seconds of the lie and the fact-based debunking of it)

(close with a Bush/McCain lie on WMD, or something similar)

Repeating a lie, one knows to be false, is not presidential. Senator McCain, if you have a record to run on, you do not need to distort the truth to win.

I am Barack Obama and I approve this message.

The nose

How about incorporating a Pinocchio nose on McCain and Palin when these spots are run? As their lies are told, we would see a graphic of a growing nose. Use the same GOP tactic of reducing things to images that voters can relate to (flip-flops, anyone?). Visually, make McCain/Palin synonomous with the lies of Pinocchio.

This might actually, at some point, cause McCain to actually run on his record.

Where art thou, Hillary?

Isn't it odd that the one time we have been hearing about Hillary Clinton engaging with Sarah Palin, it turns to be a parody on "Saturday Night Live?"

That makes me wonder, where are you Senator Clinton?

Please try speaking up a little louder against Sarah Palin, the self-professed 'barracuda,' who has unloaded, seemingly scot-free, on Senator Obama. Either the media just isn't listening to what you have to say Hillary, or else you're not doing your best to make yourself heard.

You know what's funny? Some sites are suggesting that you aren't saying much about Sarah Palin at all?

If not, I would like to know why?

You see, if you are not seen as going all out in 2008...and by going all out, I mean doing all you can to prevent Sarah Palin from using you as a tool to attract voters to McCain...than there will be nothing to worry about campaigning for in 2012.

If The Revlon Fits

Just a quick comment on the GOP Rovian tactic of taking a comment out of context and deliberately making a controversy out of an intentional distortion...

First, this should not be left to Senator Obama. It should be handled by prominent women in the Democratic party. Hillary, where art thou?

Having said that, this should be the retort:

Senator Obama never made the 'lipstick on a pig' reference, in regards to Governor Sarah Palin. But, since they brought it up, she presides over the state that receives more earmarks per capita than any other in the U.S.

Doesn't that make her the 'Queen of pork?'

As, this post is titled....if the Revlon fits.

Hmm...do you thinks the Dems may actually use the GOP's lies against them? There's a first time for everything.

(note: I will be unavailable to post until the beginning of next week, it will be interesting to see how this new distortion plays out. I think McCain has finally overdone the smear tactics. I hope this will backfire big time. If Americans have any intelligence, and the media has any dignity remaining, it will).

Republican Hypocrisy: John Stewart's Home Run

For me, this was John Stewart's finest moment.

Stewart, on the Daily Show, did exactly what the Democrats should have been doing all along, exposing Republican hypocrisy. My only quibble with the person who provided this video was the erroneously spelled 'hypocracy' on the title card, introducing this video.

Unfortunately, to this point, we are seeing a Kerry-like campaign, which is why the ridiculous ticket of McCain-Palin is currently in the lead.

With so much material to work with from the candidates themselves...with hypocrisy being the true cornerstone of this entire campaign...can the Dems grow some cojones and start playing offense?

The brilliant Mr. Stewart shows you how it is done...with a sense of humor, to boot. And everybody knows how much John McCain appreciates a sense of humor.

Debunking The Lies Of McCain-Palin: The Bridge To Nowhere

The primary narrative that the GOP laid out for Sarah Palin, as she emerged from her relative anonymity in Alaska, was that she was a fellow 'maverick' who fought against earmarks and special interests, culminating in her allegedly turning down the "bridge to nowhere," with a "thanks, but no thanks."

It's a great American story. It also happens to be a lie.

Since the mainstream media will, for the most part, not report the truth, it is something many of us on the progressive side of the blogosphere are doing to help insure we have an informed electorate come November.

As I debunk the McCain-Palin lies, I will make sure everything is fully attributed. I don't want anyone to take my word for anything. The truth is out there, all we need are the proper tools to uncover it.

The Bridge To Nowhere

The 'bridge to nowhere' was a proposed bridge that would have connected Ketchican, Alaska to the Ketchican International Airport on Gravina Island. The bridge was projected to cost $398 million (which sounds much cheaper than 400 million), and would have replaced the need for a ferry, which is currently used.

According to a story in the 5/17/05 edition of USA Today,the proposed bridge would be,

nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge, to connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) to the city airport on Gravina Island (population 50).

The Metamorphosis Of Sarah Palin

When Sarah Palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, getting earmarks for her city was one of her annual traditions. In fact, it is well documented that Palin hired a lobbyist that got her town $27 million in earmarked projects. The population of Wasilla at the time? 6,900.

During her run for Governor, Sarah Palin had no problem campaigning for funding for the Gravina Island Bridge. As USA Today accurately reported,

While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess.

In an article in the 10/5/06 edition of the Anchorage Daily News, titled 'Bridges, oil and wolves drive debate: GOVERNOR'S RACE: Candidates sound off on key state issues," (fee required), the following was reported:

As for the infamous "bridges to nowhere," MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs. Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow.

Sarah Palin, shortly after she was elected, had a change of heart. As the 12/16/06 edition of the Anchorage Daily News reported, in a story titled "Budget plan calls for belt- tightening" (fee required),

Palin's budget doesn't include money for mega projects that she supported as a candidate, such as the controversial Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan.

Asked if she'd changed her mind about the project, Palin said she will hash out where the bridge fits on the state's list of priorities with the help of the Legislature and public.

"We have a limited pot of money, of course, and we need to make wise, sensible choices," she said.

The Lie

Andrew Halcro, on his blog, reported on the following exchange with Sarah Palin and Charlie Rose, from 10/12/07:

CR: What was that highway Senator Stevens wanted to build?

SP: He wanted to build a bridge.

CR: You stopped that didn't you?

SP: Stopped that because we'll make sensible decisions using other peoples money, federal money, and we'll make some wise decisions on how to build up our infrastructure.
CR: Did you get any feedback on your decision?

SP: From those in Congress?

CR: Yes

SP: Yes I did, but Alaskans are supportive, again just to make some wise decisions with other peoples money.

As Halcro writes:

The governor's decision was made just 6 weeks after U.S. Senator Ted Stevens Girdwood home was raided by the FBI and rumors were at a fever pitch that an indictment was soon to follow.

The reason for sending out the 5am press release was to hit east coast newscycles to gain maximum national attention for the move. The move garnered big news coverage nationwide.

The bottom line was that Governor-elect Sarah Palin, whose entire career had consisted of securing earmarks (there is a reason why Alaska had twice the amount of earmarks per capita than any other state), knew that her state was being belittled in the media. She knew that Stevens was being investigated. And she knew that, if Alaska was going to continue to receive money, she had to do something.

To put it simply...Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere, before she was against it.

If it was just a matter of not taking pork, Palin's story would have maybe some validity. However, Governor Palin would have committed political suicide had she generically turned down money earmarked for her state. She didn't. She merely reduced it to a couple hundred million.

As Palin herself wrote in the 3/5/08 edition of the Fairbanks News-Miner,

I am not among those who have said "earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation." I recognize that Congress, which exercises the power of the purse, has the constitutional responsibility to put its mark on the federal budget, including adding funds that the president has not proposed.

She adds,

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

It is a lie to suggest that Palin had been against this bridge...that is was somehow offered to her...and, out of her maverick, rebellious nature, she turned it down. It is a lie to suggest she is, or ever has been, against earmarks.

She strongly advocated for earmarks as mayor. As governor, facing stiff opposition from Washington, she merely reduced what she was requesting.

Had Palin not changed her mind on the bridge, the public outcry had gotten so bad, at that point, that she would have been hard-pressed to get money for other Alaskan pet projects.

And, up to that point, those earmarks were what Sarah Palin was all about.

Alaska did not return the money

What makes this the utmost farce was that Alaska got the money anyway and just used it for other projects, as Frank Rich recently pointed out.

According to factcheck.org:

Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

So, how come the mainstream media is letting her get away with this?

Why the kid gloves treatment on a woman we know nothing about, who is kept under wraps while we are fed carefully chosen media soundbytes?

Why, indeed?

Maverick McCain?

NOTE: POSITIONING OF THIS POST HAS BEEN IRRETRIEVABLY ALTERED, ACCESS THE REPOST OF THIS VIDEO HERE.

As evidence that the 'maverick' part of McCain is pure Hollywood fantasy, right up there with George Bush becoming a cowboy for 8 years with the purchase of his Crawford Ranch, enjoy the above clip from You Tube.

It stars McCain and Bush, with supporting 'mavericks,' Cheney and Palin. It is all set to the theme from the old TV western "Maverick," which ran from 1957-1962.

Gloria Steinem Deconstructs Sarah Palin

In an Op-Ed on Thursday, feminist leader Gloria Steinem laid bare the record on John McCain and Sarah Palin. Steinem, a former Clinton supporter who now supports Barack Obama, did not pull any punches.

In a piece in the L.A. Times, titled "Palin: wrong woman, wrong message," Steinem writes:

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.

As far as voting for the GOP ticket in anger over Clinton's defeat for the nomination, Steinem had this to say:

To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

In case there is any doubt as to why the choice of Palin should be anathema to women, Steinem spells it all out in one stinging paragraph:

She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

These are points well remembering when we debate the merits of Palin's credentials to be president.

With the sort of record that Sarah Palin has on the issues, I think just letting her record speak for itself should cause Independents and moderate Democrats to get turned off in a hurry.

We just have to let people know what her record is, because the GOP is doing its best to keep it buried.

You can access the full article here.

When Are The Dems Going To Learn How To Fight?

I had to make a couple of brief comments, in the wake of the media genuflection over Sarah Palin's delivery of the speech written for her at the GOP convention.

Democrats need to learn how to play this game.

How is it that we are playing defense from attacks by Palin? Is this the other side of the looking glass?

Once again, Democrats are afraid to attack the GOP because we let them define the terms. We are supposed to mention John McCain/war hero, every time we have the audacity to question his foreign policy experience. And now, instead of McCain having to answer for putting an unknown, inexperienced, religious zealot within a heartbeat from the presidency, we are supposed to feel that her inexperience is somehow equivalent to Obama's? On any level?

Why, because we are afraid to attack a self-professed barracuda for alleged fear of offending Hillary supporters?

This is reading like a bad joke.

Let me make clear what the Democratic strategy has to be from this day forward.

Play offense.

Or lose.

One final thing...if you want 'community organizer' to not go the way of 'trial lawyers,' maybe the Dems could do what I saw suggested at Crooks & Liars...remind folks that Jesus was a community organizer.

Oh, by the way, so was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And Susan B. Anthony.

Not to mention the countless people, in all the various service groups in communities all over America that exist to help people in all walks of life get empowered.

Since when do those who register voters (they're community organizers of the very best, most patriotic stripe) deserve to be tarred by a Rovian dirty trick?

Fait accomplis.

RNC Co-Chair's "Sarah Pawlenty" Gaffe

It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

This is no slouch referring to Veep nominee Sarah Palin, as Sarah Pawlenty (Tim Pawlenty, of course, being the Minnesota governor who was apparently the one passed over for the nomination). No, this is, believe it or not, the RNC Co-Chair, Jo Ann Davidson who made the goof.

It would be like introducing Biden as Joe Clinton.

Break out the popcorn, maybe I can stomach the GOP convention after all.

Like Mother Like Daughter?

John Aravosis posted some interesting information about Sarah Palin on AmericaBlog. It is the same information that Alan Colmes (who would have thought it?) posted on his blog.

If what I read is true, then Sarah Palin eloped with her husband on August 29, 1988. She gave birth to her oldest son on April 20, 1989...less than 8 months after she eloped.

Does anybody think this is coincidence?

This is especially telling, considering Palin preaches abstinence as the only form of birth control.

Palin's Lack Of Compassion Towards Labor`

In my early research on Governor Sarah Palin, I found a very revealing piece from the Denver Rocky Mountain News of 8/10/97:

WASILLA, Alaska -- Opal Toomey, Esther West and Ann Meyers don't seem like politically active types. There are no bumper stickers on their cars, no pins on their lapels.

But the three gray-haired matrons of Wasilla's city museum decided to take a stand. Faced with a $32,000 budget cut and the prospect of choosing who would lose her job, the three 15-year-plus employees decided instead to quit en masse at the end of July, leaving the museum without a staff.

``We hate to leave,'' said Meyers, who at 65 is the youngest of the three. ``We've been together a long time. But this is enough.''

If the city were broke, it would be different, she said. Instead, the city is flush with $4 million in reserves. There is no reason the museum's budget should be cut, Meyers said.

But the mayor and City Council members who supported the cut say the surplus is beside the point. They were elected to minimize government and concentrate on infrastructure - paving roads and extending sewer lines.

The museum, which had an annual budget of more than $200,000, was costing roughly $25 per visitor, said Mayor Sarah Palin. Museum supporters say losing the women will be a blow to this city north of Anchorage. The three have run the two-story building since the early 1980s.

The Palin Selection

After finding myself unexpectedly moved time-and-again, while watching the democratic love fest in Colorado, I scarcely had time to reflect, before John "Straight Talk" McCain chose the straightest of running mates, former beauty queen Sarah Palin.

Palin, formerly a mayor of a city under 6,000, and the governor, for 20 months, of Alaska, the state with the 48th lowest population.

This is experience?

But she is a darling of the religious right and, you may find this hard to believe, a woman! I cannot wait until Hillary sinks her teeth into this one. Ironically, McCain's VP choice elevates Hillary into the role of leading attack dog in this campaign. Nobody but Senator Clinton will be able to effectively rip apart Palin. That needs to be done by a woman, or it will be perceived as sexism. So why not the one who almost got the presidential nod?

Can you imagine that a woman, who wants us to be teaching creationism in the schools, is a John McCain cancer outbreak away from the presidency?

I am wondering whether Palin will be campaigning in swimsuit and sash, or if it will be evening gown and tiara? I would love to see the upcoming vice presidential debates include a talent competition. I haven't seen good baton-twirling in a long, long time.

This has to have totally blown the election for the republicans.

I mean, Americans are not that stupid.

Are we?

McCain & Lieberman Sought To Invade Iraq Just 3 Months After 9/11

Maybe Joe Lieberman is the perfect running mate for John McCain after all.

In December 2001, the Bush Administration had been trying to tie the then-recent anthrax mailings to Iraq, only to have those connections fully shot down.

So, members of Congress were enlisted by BushCo to 'get the party started,' so to speak. It seems a jointly signed letter was sent out on December 5th.

From UPI from 12/8/01:

"Two prominent American experts on Iraq cautioned the Bush administration on Friday not to go after Iraq in what is being termed as the possible "second phase" of America's new war on terrorism.

"The warnings came about as 10 key members of Congress sent a letter to President George W. Bush earlier in the week encouraging him to set his sights on Saddam Hussein's regime as the next target in the war.

"'As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaida, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq,' they noted.

"Signers of the letter included Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Trent Lott, R-Miss., Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee."

The following day, States News Service (12/11/01), had the following to say:

"With possible U.S. victory nearing in the campaign to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are now setting their sights on another target in the war against terrorism: Iraq.

"Claiming that Iraq continues to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction 'intended for use against the United States,' nine leading members of Congress delivered a letter to the White House advising the administration to "directly confront" Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - "sooner rather than later."

"As part of that effort, the lawmakers advise that President Bush begin beefing up support for Iraqi opposition forces with military training, information gathering and humanitarian assistance.

"'Without allies on the ground inside Iraq, we will be handicapping our own efforts,'" reads the letter, which was spearheaded by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. 'Each day that passes costs us an opportunity to unite and professionalize the Iraqi opposition, thus ensuring it will be less capable when the conflict begins.'"

The 12/6/01 edition of the Washington Post had more details on the letter that was sent:

"The letter adds to the chorus of policymakers calling for efforts to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It follows warnings by Bush that Iraq will face serious consequences if it does not allow United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. 'We believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later,' the letter said.

"Noting that this month marks the third anniversary of the last U.N. inspection of Iraqi weapons programs, the lawmakers said the current economic sanctions are not enough to contain Iraq. They said the administration had struggled to close "loopholes" in the sanctions but had failed to stop illicit oil sales. They also said they have no doubt Hussein has "reinvigorated" Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

"The lawmakers urged Bush to provide more assistance to the opposition Iraqi National Congress. 'Successive administrations have funded conferences, offices and other intellectual exercises that have done little more than expose the INC to accusations of being 'limousine insurgents' and 'armchair guerrillas,' the letter said."

Face The Nation
McCain was a guest on CBS' Face the Nation on 12/9/01. From that transcript comes this revealing excerpt:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: Now, with another perspective on all of this, from Phoenix, Arizona, Senator John McCain.

Senator McCain, welcome.

U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: I want to get right to it here.

You and a number of other senators, mostly Republicans, but along with Democrat Joe Lieberman and I think Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., have sent a letter to the administration urging the next target to be Iraq. You said, and here`s a quote from the letter, "We believe we must directly confront Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later." Two questions. First, what are you talking about? Are you talking about invading Iraq, or are you talking about something else?

MCCAIN: I think we`re talking about addressing the issue.

As you know, several years ago, we passed a bill that Senator Lieberman and I and others sponsored that called for assisting the internal and external opposition to Saddam Hussein and doing everything we can to overthrow him.

I think that the strategy and the specific tactics would be left to people like your previous guest.

But what I think we`re trying to say is that Saddam Hussein presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. We know he is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We know he has had contact with terrorist organizations. We know he has violated the terms of his -- the cease-fire agreement of 1991. And recent defectors indicate that he has accelerated his efforts, particularly the acquisition of biological weapons. So he must be addressed.

I would suggest the first thing, as the president has already said, demand the return of the inspectors. And provide real assistance to this internal opposition.

Can they succeed? We don`t know, because we`ve never really given, neither the last administration nor sadly this administration, have given them the assistance that I think they need, to find out whether they are viable or not.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let`s say that Saddam Hussein, and there seems every indication that he`s going to, if he rejects that idea to let the inspectors come back in, then what do we do?

MCCAIN: Then I think, as I said, we continue -- or start to give real assistance to the internal opposition.

And then I think we examine our options. Whether that`s a direct military invasion, whether that`s a bombing campaign, whether that`s a number of other options, I think will be explored by the administration.

But I think it`s got to be a step-by-step kind of a scenario, because clearly we`re going to send young Americans, again, into harm`s way.

BORGER: Well, Senator, don`t you worry that, if we did get into that kind of an armed conflict against Iraq, that it could explode in the Middle East, that Iraq could attack Israel, say, for example, and then we`d have a larger problem on our hands?

MCCAIN: That`s always been, frankly, a nightmare scenario I`ve had, a biological weapon on a Scud missile aimed at Israel and Saddam Hussein making certain demands. I think that that`s a real problem.

Also maintaining the support or at least the acquiescence of other countries in the region would be difficult.

But I think the alternative is to sit by and watch Saddam Hussein cause millions of his own people to starve, which is sad in itself. But most importantly and most dramatically, is that it`s a matter of time before he acquires this capability. And the longer we delay, the more likely we`re faced with one of these nightmare scenarios which could entail casualties of enormous proportions, and, again, a direct threat to the security of the United States of America.

Time For Obama To 'Change' Course

Despite my discomfort with the way Barack Obama has been conducting his campaign, I have spent the past 6 weeks articulating a defense for him, primarily on blogs at the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. I figured that would get more play than merely just posting here, but I think it is important to keep this site up as well. For the run-up to the election, I am hoping to post regularly.

Today, Frank Rich has an op-ed piece titled, "Last Call For Change We Can Believe In." In it, Rich calls for Obama to be more aggressive in taking on John McCain. As is often the case with Rich, he hit a bulls-eye.

I posted the following in their 'comments' section:

If John McCain is going to continue touting foreign policy experience, shouldn't we demonstrate the result of his expertise?

Where are the quotes about how we would be greeted as liberators and how Iraqi money would finance the invasion?

Where are the misquotes on an alleged Iraqi-Pakistani border and his cluelessness over sunni and shia differences?

They are being obscured because Obama is falling into the Kerry trap...playing defense.

The game in politics is won on offense and it needs to be McCain who should be defending the GOP policies of the past 8 years to justify being given 4 more.

The fact that the mainstream media uses the term 'war hero' to gloss over anything that would tarnish the true McCain image, is the biggest joke of the campaign coverage thus far. As if they ever did that for John Kerry.

The very fact that McCain borrowed the Solzhenitsym cross-in-the sand story and the media has left it unexamined tells you all you need to know about the different levels of scrutiny for the 2 candidates.

The only solution is for Obama to constantly be on the attack with McCain. Not a personal attack, but an attack that reveals how wrong-headed McCain has been on policy, issues, and 'facts,' using his own statements against him.

If Obama does not force the issue and play offense, the media will not follow-up on McCain's errors and mis-statements on their own. We have seen that.

If Obama continues to merely fend off attacks, this race is over. I am hoping for a 'change' in that regard.

My Obama Dilemma

Ever since Senator Barack Obama voted 'yes' on the FISA bill, I have been in a quandary.

I initially switched my support from Senator Hillary Clinton to Obama because, shortly after the New York primary, Obama came back to initially vote against the bill, but Clinton chose not to vote. I find a 'yes' vote on this bill to be utterly unconscionable and pandering of the worst sort.

His vote has caused me to not support his campaign financially, pending what I see in future weeks from him. I had also made a vow to stop supporting him on internet blogs and forums. But honestly, I cannot just stand by and let supporters of McCain get by with some of the horrific slander that I see get posted.

So, I am back on a myriad of sites doing my best to articulate why a John McCain presidency would be a nightmare for America.

I even came up with my own pet phrase for McCain's accusing Obama of flip-flopping.

Considering McCain's pandering to the religious right and his seemingly daily changing of positions, I refer to the charges as 'the POW calling Obama black.'

I will say this, I am angry about a lot of things. I am angry that America has allowed BushCo to take this country so far backward and nearly bankrupt and destroy it. I am angry that in some polls McCain is in a dead heat with Obama. It infuriates me that in recent polling, the country apparently is actually split on Iraq? Split?
And, in these same polls, John McCain is seen as superior on foreign policy.

Yes, the same McCain who said we would be greeted as liberators, who didn't know the difference between shia and sunni, who said one could shop in Baghdad without protection, who said Iraqi oil would finance this incursion, who predicted it would be a short war, who needed Joe Lieberman to correct him about a mis-statement on al-Qaeda in Iraq....and on and on. This is the man viewed as the expert on foreign policy???

So, out of my anger, and fear that a Republican president will destroy the impartiality of the Supreme Court for decades to come, I blog to help get Obama elected.

I just hope my candidate stops being such a disappointment to me.

An 'alert' for race baiters

Here is a version for those who are using race-baiting:

***WARNING: RNC RACE CARD ALERT***

This poster has just followed RNC orders to
spread fear and racist panic about a possible Obama
presidency. No facts or persuasive arguments
were used, just a race-dividing message designed
to appeal to your emotions and scare you.

If this had been an actual posting by a person
with reason, it would have been supported by
logic and rationale behind their racist charges.

This concludes our RNC race card alert. We now return
to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Debut of the RNC Fear Alert

As I have written, I have spent most of my blog time on various boards and forums on the Internet, trying to engage in dialogue in support of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy.

One type of poster that has truly annoyed me, but is not worth the time to individually respond to, is the one who plays the old GOP fear game when they attack Obama.

I have come up with a way to respond to these trolls. Introducing my new RNC fear alert, which can now be cut and pasted to respond to that type of unsavory attack, underscore the GOP strategy involved, and cut the teeth out of any of the charges.

Feel free to come up with your own variation of the warning for yourselves, or use mine if you'd like.

Note: (made a couple of improvements suggested by 'anonymous' poster in my comments section. The additional text appears in boldface)

-----------clip here------------

***WARNING: RNC FEAR ALERT***

This poster has just followed RNC orders to
spread fear and panic about a possible Obama
presidency. No facts or persuasive arguments
were used, just a doomsday message designed
to appeal to your emotions and scare you.

If this had been an actual posting by a person
with reason, it would have been supported by
logic and rationale behind their nebulous charges,
and a response would appear here -- supported by
facts and logical analysis.

As it is, you are invited to simply ignore it and
move on, as we have done.

This concludes our RNC fear alert. We now return
to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Okay...Primary Battle Over...Game On

With all the acrimony that took place during the contest between Clinton and Obama during the end of the primary campaign, I made a vow to myself to wait until the issue was settled, before blogging again. It was very dispiriting to watch the Democratic party self-immolate.

But shortly thereafter, I decided to get involved again and chose to do it by posting on various forums throughout the net, not just progressive sites. I spent a lot of time posting on sites such as the NY Times and Washington Post. I then spread out beyond that and posted in other forums, whenever I saw a compelling reason to join the discussion.

I was finding it more compelling to speak my thoughts to those who might never consider reading a progressive blog. I liked sharing ideas with others on message boards, including both independents and conservatives. I also thought those type of posts reached many more people.

However, my blog should really include more of the source material for much of what I post elsewhere, anyway.

So today, I am making a vow to myself to re-invigorate this blog. I suspect I will be doing more, but shorter posts. The sources I reference, or comments I make on the message boards should have a central location here. So I plan on giving it a shot.

Michael Mukasey & The Manipulation of Truth

Last week, Michael Mukasey, speaking in San Francisco, made some startling comments about alleged pre-9/11 intelligence. He exploited the deaths of some 3,000 Americans to make political points in the FISA fight. Despite the fact that the media has been prepared to allow him to get away with those comments, there are those who have decided to expose what he said and actually hold the Attorney General accountable for his words.

What a concept!

I was listening to the Rachel Maddow show this evening on Air America, when she interviewed Glenn Greenwald, who has challenged Mukasey in a column at salon.com.

Greenwald writes:

"Speaking in San Francisco this week, Mukasey demanded that the President be given new warrantless eavesdropping powers and that lawbreaking telecoms be granted amnesty. To make his case, Mukasey teared up while exploiting the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 and said this:

"Officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

"At that point in his answer, Mr. Mukasey grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America's anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. "We got three thousand. . . . We've got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn't come home to show for that," he said, struggling to maintain his composure.

"At the time of the attacks, Mr. Mukasey was the chief judge at the federal courthouse a few blocks away from the World Trade Center.

"These are multiple falsehoods here, and independently, this whole claim makes no sense. There is also a pretty startling new revelation here about the Bush administration's pre-9/11 failure that requires a good amount of attention."

Greenwald asks the questions and makes the points that the corporate-owned media has chosen to ignore.

Among them are the fact that warrants were not required under the old FISA law to monitor a call that originated in Afghanistan. Additionally, in a worst-case scenario, the government would have been allowed to monitor suspected terrorists for 72 hours without pursuing a warrant. So, Greenwald wonders, "why didn't they" eavesdrop on that alleged call.

If Mukasey was speaking metaphorically, he needs to come clean, and quick. Otherwise, the charge that the White House had pre-9/11 intelligence and refused to follow-up, needs to be investigated for sheer incompetence.

Greenwald also catches Mukasey in yet another lie. The Attorney General has repeated the untruth that the telecoms cannot face trial or our national secret methods of tracking down terrorists would be compromised.

Greenwald writes:

"Mike Mukasey was a long-time federal judge and so I feel perfectly comfortable calling that what it is: a brazen lie. Federal courts hear classified information with great regularity and it is not heard in "open court." There are numerous options available to any federal judge to hear classified information -- closed courtrooms, in camera review (in chambers only), ex parte communications (communications between one party and the judge only). No federal judge -- and certainly not Vaughn Walker, the Bush 41 appointee presiding over the telecom cases -- is going to allow "disclosure in open court of . . . . the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence." And Mukasey knows that."

Greenwald goes farther than this and I urge you to check out the entire column here.

After familiarizing yourself with the story it would be a good idea to demand that our local politicians and media outlets actually start asking questions to get to the bottom of this.

Et Tu Carville

I have gone about 6 weeks since posting. That is how turned off I have become with Democratic politics in the run-up to the convention and election.

My last post explained why I switched from Senator Clinton(who I briefly supported after John Edwards withdrew from the race) to Senator Obama.

Events of the past month-and-a-half have confirmed to me that I made the right decision, and my mood has gone from depressed to downright angry.

In my mind, Hillary Clinton and her surrogates are demonstrating that they care more about her personal ambition than they do about winning the 2008 election. As I write, it is being gift-wrapped for Bush light, Senator McCain.

Perfectly illustrative of the type of politics the Democrats need to purge from the party is the latest salvo from Mr. Mary Matalin, James Carville.

In commenting about New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's recent endorsement of Obama, Carville called the endorsement "an act of betrayal" and then had this to add: "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

How pathetic that the man who is married to one of the top operatives in the GOP thinks this is all a game. How else to explain his decision to so discredit one of the top Hispanic politicians in America, because Richardson allegedly owes the Clintons loyalty for past high positions he was given in Bill Clinton's administration.

I know one thing, any person who is endorsed by cowboy Carville is somebody I will keep my distance from. I find his insider political gamesmanship more than a tad revolting, and if anybody is a traitor, it is Carville. It is comments like that that must make his home life with Mary so much more harmonious, as it plays perfectly into the GOP game plan.

And Carville damn well knows it.