Archive for the 'Tough Questions' Category

19
Mar
09

AIG and the Irony of Socialism

Last night, I was thinking about this whole AIG fiasco and our global economic situation, and I was struck by a simple, yet profound concept that I wanted to share and get insight on from all of you. So here goes…

It’s amazing to me how these laissez-faire capitalists at all these banks, at all these stock exchange companies, at all these fortune 500 companies are the BIGGEST proponents of capitalism and the BIGGEST detractors from the socialistic ideas of “fairness” and “sharing” and “spreading the wealth around” when it comes to sharing PROFITS. But then when the bubble bursts and they are in trouble, they flip around and become the BIGGEST fans of socialism when it comes to sharing LOSSES.

So let me just get this straight and let’s be honest about this — these huge conglomerates, these CEO’s who are making millions upon millions of dollars, living on Park Avenue, having limo service, spending $10,000 on one meal, flying private gulfstream jets, living the LIFE as they reap profits hand over fist will cry and scream from the highest heavens if you DARE to, as Barack Obama did during the campaign, suggest that we need a bit of wealth spreading to get down to the middle and lower classes to even the playing field. Yet, when these same CEOs and executives mismanage funds, steal, rape and pillage from the corporate coffers, and scam the American people, causing a global economic crisis, they are the FIRST to have their filthy, gluttonous hands held out to receive government funds to save their companies. THAT is SOCIALISM at its WORST.

And I understand that we NEED to bail out AIG. I get all the facts and figures showing the dominoe effect that would result if a company as huge as AIG were to fail. So I RELUCTANTLY accept the fact that we the American people will need to bail this company out this time.

BUT…two things:

(1) I REFUSE to stand by and allow this to happen without seeing some real change in the way we do business in this country, and if these so-called capitalist loving executives and bankers don’t like it, screw them. We need STRICT regulations and STRICT anti-trust rules so this kind of thing cannot happen again. and

(2) We need to reform our teaching and our thinking so that we do not ALLOW these people to play with out minds and demean us when we talk about things like fairness and even-handedness. Because what have we gotten out of their “system” of doing business? Nothing but a complete rift between the classes (which they love by the way), an utter lack of respect  for values such as vision, long-term success, and investment, and a greed that is so deep and so pervasive that even we little people forget to stand up and fight against it.

We have grown accustomed to this madness. Not any longer. I cannot stand by any longer, and I am proud today to have a President who is willing to say “enough.” Who is willing to stand up in front of the American people, in front of these CEO’s and say, “ok, we need to clean up this mess, but that’s only the beginning. The party’s over fellas, and we are going to be changing things around here because we cannot, as a nation, a global economy, and as individuals be submitted to this type of torturous bubble and bust economy any longer.” It’s not worth it and it’s not healthy….for anyone. So go on and get your bailout, but know that things are going to be changing…if only we keep talking about it and keep demanding it.

09
Mar
09

Obama Puts an end to Republicans’ War on Science

President Barack Obama is set to repeal former-president Bush’s ban on federal funding for stem-cell research today, but he has his sights set much broader than that single issue. “I would simply say this memorandum is not concerned solely — or even specifically — with stem cell research,” said the chairman of the White House’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. According to the Associated Press, “[Obama’s] advisers said it was part of a broader declaration that solid science — not political ideology — would guide the new administration’s policies on matters ranging from renewable energy to climate change.”

13
Oct
08

The Block FM’s Stimulus Package

Economy got you down? Need some free stuff? The Block FM is here to stimulate you!

This is ALL you need to do:

  • Listen every day at 10am PST (CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE for more listening info)
  • Email us on the topic of the day to: buzz@theblockfm.com and be sure to include you name and telephone number
  • Be by your phone during normal business hours, 9am-5pm, and wait for The Block FM to call you and stimulate you!

IT IS THAT SIMPLE! EMAIL BUZZ@THEBLOCKFM.COM = FREE STUFF… what are you waiting for?

02
Oct
08

Joe Was AMAZING!

The consensus from the debate seems to be that while Sarah Palin exceeded the exceedingly low expectations set for her, Joe Biden won the night. The word comes from former members of the Bush administration and even John McCain’s former press secretary.

Torie Clarke, who worked with McCain back in Arizona and with the Bush Administration’s Department of Defense, had the following remarks on ABC:

“I’m so surprised at what we are talking about before and after the debate. Before the debate the speculation was all on Sarah Palin, how well can she do, can she answer the tough questions? Nobody was paying attention to Joe Biden. I think Joe Biden had his best night tonight. He came with one mission, and that was to go after John McCain, and he did it, backed up by facts. I think he did a better job tonight of tying McCain to the Bush administration than Obama did last week.

Matthew Dowd, who worked for George Bush’s communications team while in the White House, followed Clarke and he too agreed that the Delaware Democrat took the evening.

“I think, you know, I agree with her on this. I think Sarah Palin did reasonably well. The death spiral she has been on for the last week, she survived. She’s lived another day. She did well. But I think, when the polls come out in the next two, three days, Joe Biden won this debate.”

29
Sep
08

The Pressing Question No One is Asking…

Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, famously declared that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Twenty-seven years later, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and seven-plus years into the reign of Bush and Cheney, Reagan’s anti-government battle cry should be on trial. But, stunningly, it is not.

This needs to change. The presidential candidates’ view of the role of government should be one of the central questions of the last 36 days of the campaign. And it should definitely be a question they are asked at their next debate:

“Sen. McCain, given the part deregulation played in the current economic crisis and your support of a massive government bailout of the financial industry, are you now ready to break with Ronald Reagan’s assessment?”

And, to be even handed: “Sen. Obama, in 1996, Bill Clinton cheerfully announced that ‘the era of big government is over.’ As the Dow plummets and Wall Street and Main Street turn to Washington for big government bailouts, are you now ready to break with President Clinton’s assessment?”

The shift in my own thinking on the role of government was what led to my disillusionment with the Republican Party, and the transformation in my political views. I’ve always been progressive on social issues: pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights — even when I was a Republican. The big difference is that I once believed the private sector would address America’s social problems. But the hope that people would roll up their sleeves and solve this country’s social ills without the help of government was never fully realized. There were never enough volunteers or donations — and the problems were just too massive and intractable to tackle without the raw power of appropriations that only government can provide.

Our economy is not the only thing that is crumbling. So is the philosophical foundation of the modern Republican Party — also known as the Leave Us Alone Coalition, led by its spiritual guru, Grover Norquist. His dream of making government so small “we can drown it in a bathtub” has been embraced by the GOP mainstream.

Indeed, during his 2003 inauguration, Jeb Bush stood in front of Florida’s capitol building and said: “there would be no greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we can make these buildings around us empty of workers; silent monuments to the time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill.”

I sadly suspect that Jeb and Grover and their Republican compatriots have not yet updated their views of government — they have not yet made the connection between demonizing government and looking to it to save the day.

The financial meltdown has put the Grand Old Party’s schizophrenia on full display. But why are so many in the media, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign averting their eyes from the spectacle of a party that wants to drown government until they need it to bail out Wall Street or AIG — that wants to vanquish government workers, unless they are listening in on our phone conversations or working hard rolling back government regulations?

It’s like the story, probably apocryphal, of the agitated — and obviously confused — senior citizen imploring a GOP politician not to “let the government get its hands on Medicare.”

With the madness of this contradictory mindset exposed, voters will have a chance to decide if they agree with Norquist and Jeb and W and Cheney and the Republican Messiah himself, Ronald Reagan and, yes, with John McCain. And even Cindy McCain who, in her otherwise bland convention speech, called for “the Federal government” to “get itself under control and out of our way.”

A staggering 83 percent of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction. And, I’m sorry, Sen. McCain, I don’t think it’s because of too many earmarks or because $3 million was spent in 2003 to study bear DNA in Montana.

Size matters in some things, but when it comes to government, it’s not the size of the government, it’s the way it is utilized.

“Big government” didn’t get us into Iraq. It didn’t spy on Americans or open black op rendition facilities all over the world. “Big government” didn’t create Guantanamo or okay the use of torture. “Big government” didn’t leave the residents of New Orleans to suffer in the wake of Katrina. “Big government” didn’t cause the financial industry to run off the rails. Indeed, the free market is what created all the new, risky ways for banks to game the system and, eventually, implode — then come calling on “big government” to ride to the rescue.

So let’s hear what McCain and Obama think the fundamental role of government should be. I can think of no better way to underline the massive gulf between the two candidates — and the two parties they represent — at the very moment when McCain is so desperately trying to blur the differences (see his recent shopping spree at the second-hand populism store: “Big discounts on ‘fat cats’ and ‘Wall Street greed’!”)

Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig says that if Americans recognize that the financial crisis — and the need for a government bailout — is due to “policies McCain still promotes… this could well be the event that effected a generational shift in governmental attitudes. Think Hoover vs. (the eventual) FDR.”

But if we want to make sure that Americans make that connection, we need to put the question of the role of government front and center in the campaign. Economic policy and foreign policy and domestic policy are all important areas of debate. But before we continue looking at the (falling) trees, let’s take a step back and consider the forest.

-Arianna Huffington

29
Sep
08

Palin Can’t Name Any Supreme Court Cases Other Than Roe v. Wade

Let’s get together and help Sarah Palin out, shall we? We all went to high school, learned a little bit of American History…let’s put our heads together and think of some landmark cases off the top of our heads that might have had some impact in how we work things in the good ole’ US of A. I’m an attorney by trade, so I guess it’s unfair, but I’m not running for VP, so I guess Palin and I are even. I’ll go off the top of my head, you fill in the blanks that I forget with posted comments.

  • Marbury v. Madison – kinda decided for us what the power of the judicial branch of government was. The first landmark case of many led by the Marshall court.
  • McCulloch v. Maryland – oh the whole state reserved powers v. federal enumerated powers thing
  • Dred Scott v. I forget – slaves ain’t citizens and Congress can’t tell the states to free the slaves. Abe Lincoln isn’t happy with the decision
  • Plessy v. Ferguson – Separate but equal.
  • Brown v. Board of Education – Separate but equal overturned. Just equal….kinda.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright – if you cannot afford counsel, one will be appointed for you without cost
  • Miranda v. I forget – it’s only appropriate that Miranda followed Gideon – when cops arrest people, they gotta read them their rights; if cops perform an improper arrest, any information that they find out during the time the arrest is improper cannot be used in court against the accused
  • Roe v. Wade – ok she knew that one…I wonder if she could really articulate the findings of the Court though.
  • US v. Nixon – no Executive Privilege unless it’s a matter of national security
  • Regents v. I forget – Affirmative Action defined
  • Texas v. Johnson – flag burning case

I’m at a loss for any landmark cases over the past 20 years. But invite Gov. Palin to visit the blog and learn some U.S. history. It’s kinda important if she ever is in the position to, ya know, appoint PERMANENT members to the Supreme Court.

For cryin’ out loud people, can you just please stop the madness and send this woman and her “boss” packin’ on November 4? Thanks in advance.

29
Sep
08

Since when?

Huffingtonpost.com

Despite bad reviews from all sides, John McCain’s campaign has decided that having Sarah Palin do big broadcast interviews was a good idea, the National Review reports:

Team McCain tells me the strategy of having Palin talk to traditional broadcast networks ABC and CBS was designed to allow Palin to reach the maximum number of viewers. “Coming off her tremendous performance at the convention, our goal was to allow as many Americans as possible an opportunity to see her answer questions about her record, her biography and her principles and convictions on as large a stage as possible,” one campaign source told me this afternoon. The new CBS interviews, to be done tomorrow, are intended to keep Palin in the public eye as she prepares for Thursday’s debate.

Bill Kristol says McCain isn’t happy, however, with the way his staff has been handling Palin and is making some changes for the debate:

I’m told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff’s handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They’re supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

The Wall Street Journal has more on Palin’s liberation:

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and senior adviser Steve Schmidt are planning to coach the candidate ahead of the debate, according to senior advisers. They traveled Sunday to meet the Republican vice-presidential nominee in Philadelphia. After her appearance with Sen. McCain at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, these top officials plan to fly with her on Monday to Sen. McCain’s ranch in Sedona, Ariz., which they hope she will find a comforting place to prep, these people said.
More broadly, the McCain campaign aims to halt what it sees as a perceived decline in the crispness and precision of Gov. Palin’s latest remarks as well as a fall in recent polls, according to several advisers and party officials.

Some prominent Republicans and senior members of Congress have expressed worries about certain facets of the Palin campaign, particularly that Gov. Palin may be “overprepared” and not encouraged to be herself, an adviser said.

“She hasn’t had the time or inclination to question the judgments of the people telling her to hit her marks,” said one Republican strategist. “Gov. Palin is a team player, but the campaign needs to adjust to a game plan that works for her.

“It’s time to let Palin be Palin — and let it all hang out,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.”

25
Sep
08

We Have a secret…

Be sure to tune in on Monday, the 29th. We have a huge announcement!!!!!

22
Sep
08

Watching History Being Made

From Huffington Post…

You hear that implosion reverberating through financial markets? It’s the sound of decades of conservative ideology collapsing.

This raises many pressing questions, both short- and long-term. What’s the deal with the Paulson deal? There’s a lot of well-aimed skepticism about this plan, and myself and my EPI colleagues will be commenting on it all week (I’m not liking what I’m seeing–not enough safeguards to protect taxpayers from banks perfectly happy to dump toxic debt on the government; not enough quid pro quos for Main Street). But for now, I’d like to focus on an even more important question: what next?

The week that just ended revealed the myth of market fundamentalism: the notion associated with mainstream, Milton Freidman’esque economics, and amplified by anti-government conservatives that unfettered markets will provide society with the best outcomes. Such simplicity, such elegance…such nonsense.

For many of us, it didn’t take a market failure of the magnitude we’ve witnessed in recent weeks to belie this myth. We’ve been documenting the slow bleed of much subtler market failures for decades. Most recently, we’ve stressed that despite years of growth before the recent downturn, the real income of middle-class working-age families fell $2,000. Poverty rose. The share of the population without health coverage went up. For the first time in years, the rate of homeownership declined.

If that’s Bush’s ownership society, please don’t sign me up (in truth, it’s too late to refuse membership: as taxpayers, we’re now proud owners of a growing pile of toxic debt–thanks, George).

But slow bleed or sudden shock, the idea that I’ve described as YOYO (you’re on your own) economics is seriously on the ropes. I still encounter some old school ideologues on the CNBC airwaves, but they’re fewer and more contrite, and, interestingly, they generally support the bailouts. Apparently, their mantra is actually “you’re on your own; we’re lookin’ for a bailout.” It’s privatize the profits, socialize the losses; patriotism for the masses, socialism for the rich.

Such chatter will always be heard, but progressives have a rare opportunity to change the economic debate in this country by injecting some glaringly obvious truths into the fray, such as:

–Deregulated markets cannot police themselves; they tend toward speculation, vastly underpriced risk, and deeply damaging bubbles;

–An economy that generates growth while leaving most families behind is a broken economy;

–We can neither achieve broad prosperity nor compete globally without robust growth in key sectors which we have ignored or underfunded, including manufacturing, green production, and cradle-to-retirement public education; crafting evermore clever financial instruments will not pave the way to dependable, broadly shared growth;

–No private sector firm should be too big to fail; any firm of that magnitude must be nationalized;

–Capital markets are dysfunctional; borrowing and lending standards are ignored; lax capital requirements lead to constant over-leveraging; shadow accounts thwart transparency;

–We apparently can quickly find (or borrow) the money to do the stuff the authorities deem necessary, be it war or bailout; thus, we can also find the money we need for investment in people, from health care to education to infrastructure, etc.

–Supply-side, trickle-down economics does not work; it exacerbates already excessive levels of market-driven inequalities and defunds government, which leads to:

–Clearly, we need government to be amply funded; as is the case today, we will always turn to federal government to meet the toughest challenges, and if the money isn’t there, we’ll borrow from the future. This means taxes cannot only be lowered; they must sometimes be raised.

–For decades, under the spell of mainstream theories like “rational expectations” (bubbles can’t form because prices can’t diverge from reality for long), economists and policy makers have missed almost every big market failure, including the last two bubbles (in IT and housing). Government intervention is only “distortionary” in these models, adding the anti-gov’t bias since Reagan. We desperately need policy makers and their economists to be much better analysts of markets and how they fail. It is not an exaggeration to state that much of what’s gone wrong in the current case could have been avoided by better oversight, common-sense regulation, and clear-eyed analysis of economic indicators that should not have been missed.

If I were Martin Luther, I’d hammer such a list–and this is just a rough draft–feel free to edit and comment–to the doors of the Federal Reserve, but I’d probably get arrested or worse the minute I took out my hammer.

The point is that these are potentially transformational times.

Transformations evolve out of crises. As the great Robert Kuttner stresses in his new book, the big social movements that have transformed our politics have often resulted from the collision of brave, visionary leaders and major upheavals: Lincoln and the Civil War, FDR and the Depression, Johnson and the Civil Rights movement. Kuttner believes the stage is set for the next transformation, this time from a broken economy that threatens American prosperity to one that works for everyone.

After reading Bob’s book, I sent him a note pointing out that it might well be a lot harder to motivate major change given the slow bleed we’ve experienced versus civil war, economic depression, or mass protests and burning cities.

But that was before the bust of the last few weeks, before the onset of a crisis of capitalism that is widely described as the worst market meltdown since the Depression, before the most aggressive government intervention into the economy I’ve seen in my lifetime. Maybe these recent events fail to rank with those motivating Kuttner’s insights, but they’re getting awfully close.

What has to happen to realize the transformational potential of the moment? It’s quite amazing that this is occurring during the very moment in a pivotal election when a) the electorate is starting to pay attention, and b) the economy is the dominant issue.

The candidates are already grappling with these issues, both stressing some versions of the lessons I noted above, which is a nice way of saying McCain is adopting the mantel of reformer and regulator in order to convince pissed-off voters of his midnight conversion from a legislator who accommodated a lot of this damage to one who will fix it. But he’s so changeable these days, even uninformed voters are seeing there not much there to his populist railing. It’s all starting to sound like a pretty unhinged “I’ll say anything to get your vote!”

Obama’s got a head start. He’s much less ideological about all this stuff, with a strong pragmatic bent and a willingness to listen to diverse views. He’s also been talking for a while about the need to regulate financial markets, and his ideas are sound. Had they been in place, a lot of this mess would not have occurred.

But, as Kuttner stresses, that doesn’t mean he will be transformational, or recognize the importance of injecting views like those above into the heart of the national debate. He certainly has that capacity–the vision, the intellect, and the ability to present the big picture in an extremely compelling way. This may be one of those times when the collision of a great leader and cataclysmic events can turn the tides.

Or not. It all hinges on the next few days, weeks, and months.

Jeez…watching history unfold in front of you like this is sure worth the price of admission, ain’t it?

16
Sep
08

Naomi Wolf, as Only She Can Write…

The Block FM is going to be having Naomi Wolf as a VIP guest on our show in the coming weeks as she begins sharing her latest book with the nation. Here is a sneak preview…

The Introduction to Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries.

The summer before last, I traveled across the country talking about threats to our liberty. I spoke and listened to groups of Americans from all walks of life. They told me new and always harsher stories of state coercion.

What I had called a “fascist shift” in the United States, projections I had warned about as worst-case scenarios, was now surpassing my imagination: in 2008, thousands of terrified, shackled illegal immigrants were rounded up in the mass arrests which always characterize a closing society; news emerged that the 9/11 report had been based on evidence derived from the testimonies of prisoners who had been tortured — and the tapes that documented their torture were missing — leading the commissioners of the report publicly to disavow their own findings; the Associated Press reported that the torture of prisoners in U.S.-held facilities had not been the work of “a few bad apples” but had been directed out of the White House; the TSA “watch list,” which had contained 45,000 names when I wrote my last book, ballooned to 755,000 names and 20,000 were being added every month; Scott McClellan confirmed that the drive to war in Iraq had been based on administration lies; HR 1955, legislation that would criminalize certain kinds of political thought and speech, passed the House and made it to the Senate; Blackwater, a violent paramilitary force not answerable to the people, established presences in Illinois and North Carolina and sought to get into border patrol activity in San Diego.

The White House has established, no matter who leads the nation in the future, U.S. government spying on the emails and phone calls of Americans — a permanent violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. The last step of the ten steps to a closed society is the subversion of the rule of law. That is happening now. What critics have called a “paper coup” has already taken place.

Yes, the situation is dire. But history shows that when an army of citizens, supported by even a vestige of civil society, believes in liberty — in the psychological space that is “America” — no power on earth can ultimately suppress them.

Dissident Natan Sharansky writes that there are two kinds of states — “fear societies” and “free societies.” Understood in this light, “America” — the state of freedom that is under attack — is first of all a place in the mind. That is what we must regain now to fight back.

The two societies make up two kinds of consciousness. The consciousness derived of oppression is despairing, fatalistic, and fearful of inquiry. It is mistrustful of the self and forced to trust external authority. It is premised on a dearth of self-respect. It is cramped. People around the world understand that this kind of inner experience is as toxic an environment as is a polluted waterway they are forced to drink from; it is as insufficient a space as being compelled to sleep in a one-room hut with seven other bodies on the floor.

In contrast, the consciousness of freedom — the psychology of freedom that is “America” — is one of expansiveness, trust of the self, and hope. It is a consciousness of limitless inquiry. “Everything,” wrote Denis Diderot, who influenced, via Thomas Jefferson, the Revolutionary generation, “must be examined, everything must be shaken up, without exception and without circumspection.” Jefferson wrote that American universities are “based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Since this state of mind is self-trusting, it builds up in a citizen a wealth of self-respect. “Your own reason,” wrote Jefferson to his nephew, “is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but the uprightness of the decision.”

After my cross-country journey, I realized that I needed to go back and read about the original Revolutionaries of our nation. I realized in a new way from them that liberty is not a set of laws or a system of government; it is not a nation or a species of patriotism. Liberty is a state of mind before it is anything else. You can have a nation of wealth and power, but without this state of mind — this psychological “America” — you are living in a deadening consciousness; with this state of mind, you can be in a darkened cell waiting for your torturer to arrive and yet inhabit a chainless space as wide as the sky.

“America,” too, is a state of mind. “Being an American” is a set of attitudes and actions, not a nationality or a posture of reflexive loyalty. This tribe of true “Americans” consists of people who have crossed a personal Rubicon of a specific kind and can no longer be satisfied with anything less than absolute liberty.

This state of mind, I learned, has no national boundaries. The Tibetans, who, as I write this, are marching in the face of Chinese soldiers, are acting like members of this tribe; so did the Pakistani lawyers who recently faced down house arrest and tear gas in their suits and judicial robes. Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, and Ida B. Wells, who risked their lives for liberty, acted like “Americans.” When the crusading journalist Anna Politkovskaya insisted on reporting on war crimes in Chechnya, even though her informing her fellow citizens led — as she knew it well could — to her being gunned down on her doorstep as she went home to her fourteen-year-old daughter, she was acting like an American. When three JAG lawyers refused to sell out their detainee clients, they were being “Americans.” When Vietnam vet David Antoon risked his career to speak out in favor of the Constitution’s separation of church and state, he was being an “American.” When journalist Josh Wolf went to jail rather than reveal a source, he was being an “American” too. Always, everywhere, the members of this tribe are fundamentally the same, in spite of the great deal that may divide them in terms of clothing and religion, language and culture. But when we quietly go about our business as our rights are plundered, when we yield to passivity and switch on the Wii and hand over our power to a leadership class that has no interest in our voice, we are not acting like true Americans. Indeed, at those moments we are essentially giving up our citizenship.

The notion that “American-ness” is a state of mind — a rigorous psychodynamic process or a continued personal challenge, rather than a static point on a map or an impressive display in a Fourth of July parade — is not new. But we are so used to being raised on a rhetoric of cheap patriotism — the kind that you get to tune in to in a feel-good way just because you were lucky enough to have been born here and can then pretty much forget about — that this definition seems positively exotic. The founders understood “American-ness” in this way, though, not at all in our way.

And today, I learned as I traveled, we are very far from experiencing this connection to our source. Many of us feel ourselves clouded within, cramped, baffled obscurely from without, not in alignment with the electric source that is liberty. So it is easy for us to rationalize always further and more aggressive cramping and clouding; is the government spying on us? Well…Okay…So now the telecommunications companies are asking for retroactive immunity for their spying on us? Well…Okay…Once a certain threshold of passivity has been crossed, it becomes easier and easier, as Benjamin Franklin warned, to trade liberty for a false security — and deserve neither.

What struck me on my journey was how powerless so many Americans felt to make change. Many citizens I heard from felt more hopeless than did citizens of some of the poorest and youngest democracies on the planet. Others were angrier than ever and were speaking up and acting up with fervor. I felt that all of us — the hopeless and the hopeful — needed to reconnect to our mentors, the founders, and to remind ourselves of the blueprint for freedom they meant us to inherit. I wrote this handbook with the faith that if Americans take personal ownership of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they can push back any darkness. The first two sections of this refresher guide to our liberties recall what America is supposed to be; the last third is a practical how-to for citizen leadership for a new American Revolution.

There are concrete laws we must pass to restore liberty and actions we must take to safeguard it. You will find them in the last third of this handbook. But more crucial than any list of laws or actions is our own need to rediscover our role as American revolutionaries and to reclaim the “America” in ourselves — in our consciousness as free men and women.

Do we have the right to see ourselves this way? Absolutely. Many histories of our nation’s founding focus on a small group, “a band of brothers” or “the Founding Fathers” — the handful of illustrious men whose names we all know. This tight focus tends to reinforce the idea that we are the lucky recipients of the American gift of liberty and of the republic, not ourselves its stewards, crafters, and defenders. It prepares us to think of ourselves as the led, not as the leaders.

But historians are also now documenting the stories of how in the pre-Revolutionary years, ordinary people — farmers, free and enslaved Africans, washer-women, butchers, printers, apprentices, carpenters, penniless soldiers, artisans, wheelwrights, teachers, indentured servants — were rising up against the king’s representatives, debating the nature of liberty, fighting the war and following the warriors to support them, insisting on expanding the franchise, demanding the right to vote, compelling the more aristocratic leaders of the community to include them in deliberations about the nature of the state constitutions, and requiring transparency and accountability in the legislative process. Even enslaved Africans, those Americans most silenced by history, were not only debating in their own communities the implications or the ideas of God-given liberty that the white colonists were debating; they were also taking up arms against George III’s men in hopes that the new republic would emancipate them. Some were petitioning state legislatures for their freedom; and others were even successfully bringing lawsuits against their owners, arguing in court for their inalienable rights as human beings. This is the revolutionary spirit that we must claim again for ourselves — fast — if we are to save the country.

When Abraham Lincoln said that our nation was “conceived in Liberty” he was not simply phrasemaking; our nation was literally “conceived” by Enlightenment ideas that were becoming more and more current, waking up greater and greater numbers of ordinary people, and finally bearing on our own founders, known and unknown, with ever-stronger pressure.

Key Enlightenment beliefs of the colonial era are these: human beings are perfectible; the right structures of society, at the heart of which is a representational government whose power derives from the consent of the governed, facilitate this continual evolution; reason is the means by which ordinary people can successfully rule themselves and attain liberty; the right to liberty is universal, God given, and part of a natural cosmic order, or “natural law”; as more and more people around the world claim their God-given right to liberty, tyranny and oppression will be pushed aside. It is worth reminding ourselves of these founding ideas at a time when they are under sustained attack.

The core ideals, the essence, of what the founders imperfectly glimpsed, are perfect. I am often asked how I can so champion the writing and accomplishments of the better-known founders. Most of them were, of course, propertied, white, and male. Critics on the left often point out their flaws in relation to the very ideals they put forward. John Adams was never comfortable with true citizen democracy. “Jefferson’s writings about race reveal that he saw Africans as innately deficient in humanity and culture.” When a male slave escaped from Benjamin Franklin in England, Franklin sold him back into slavery.

But the essence of the idea of liberty and equality that they codified — an idea that was being debated and developed by men and women, black and white, of all classes in the pre-Revolutionary generation — went further than such an idea had ever gone before. It is humanity’s most radical blueprint for transformation.

More important, the idea itself carries within it the moral power to correct the contradictions in its execution that were obvious from the very birth of the new nation. An enslaved woman, Mum Bett, who became a housekeeper for the Sedgwick family of Massachussetts, successfully sued for her own emancipation using the language of the Declaration of Independence; decades later a slave, Dred Scott, argued that he was “entitled to his freedom” as a citizen and a resident of a free state. The first suffragists at the Seneca Falls Convention, intent on securing equal rights for women, used the framework of the Declaration of Independence to advance their cause. New democracies in developing nations around the world draw on our founding documents and government structure to ground their own hopes for freedom. The human beings at the helm of the new nation, whatever their limitations, were truly revolutionary. The theory of liberty born in that era, the seed of the idea, was, as I say, perfect. We should not look to other revolutions to inspire us; nothing is more transformative than our own revolution. We must neither oversentimentalize it, as the right tends to do, nor disdain it, as the left tends to do; rather we must reclaim it.

The stories I read and reread of the “spirit of 1776″ led me with new faith to these conclusions: We are not to wait for others to lead. You and I are meant to take back the founders’ mandate, and you and I are meant to lead. You and I must protest, you and I must confront our representatives, you and I must run for office, you and I must write the opeds, you and I must take over the battle. The founders — the unknown as well as the well-known Americans who “conceived” the nation in liberty — did not intend for us to delegate worrying about the Constitution to a cadre of constitutional scholars, or to leave debate to a class of professional pundits, or to leave the job of fighting for liberty to a caste of politicians. They meant for us to defend the Constitution, for us to debate the issues of the day, and for us to rise up against tyranny: the American who delivers the mail; the American who teaches our children; ordinary people.

In my reading, I went back as if to contact our mentors. I looked for practical advice and moral support from those who had stood up for the ideal.We need a strategy for a new American uprising against those who would suppress our rights; we need what Lincoln would have called “a new birth of freedom.” As readers of Tom Paine’s Common Sense had to realize, we are not declaring war on an oppressor — rather, we have to realize that the war has already, quietly, systemically, been declared against us.

Today we have most of our rights still codified on paper — but these documents are indeed “only paper” if we no longer experience them viscerally, if their violation no longer infuriates us. We can be citizens of a republic; we can have a Constitution and a Congress; but if we, the people, have fallen asleep to the meaning of the Constitution and to the radical implications of representative and direct democracy, then we aren’t really Americans anymore.

So we must listen to the original revolutionaries and to current ones as well, and explain their ideas clearly to new generations. To hear the voices of the original vision and the voices of those modern heroes, here in the U.S. and around the world, who are true heirs to the American Revolution is to feel your wishes change. “[Freedom] liberated us the day we stopped living in a world where ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ were, like everything else, the property of the State. And for the most part, this liberation did not stop when we were sentenced to prison,” wrote Sharansky. “I was not born to be forced,” wrote Henry David Thoreau. “I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest…they only can force me to obey a higher law than I.” You want to stay in that room where these revolutionaries are conversing in this electrifying way among themselves. It feels painful but ultimately cleansing and energizing. You want to be more like them; then you realize that maybe you can be — then finally you realize that you already are.

Our “America,” our Constitution, our dream, when properly felt within us, does more than “defend freedom.” It clears space to build the society that allows for the highest possible development of who we ourselves personally were meant to be.

We have to rise up in self-defense and legitimate rebellion. We need more drastic action than e-mails to Congress.

We need the next revolution.

16
Sep
08

Oh the Tangled Web We Weave….

…When first we practice to deceive
-Sir Walter Scott

From MotherJones.com

As part of an effort to beat back the investigation into whether Governor Sarah Palin fired Alaska’s public safety directory Walt Monegan because he refused to dismiss a state trooper involved in an ugly divorce with her sister, Palin’s attorney filed papers on Monday claiming that Palin fired Monegan because of his “outright insubordination” regarding policy and budgetary matters. The problem with this explanation: it directly contradicts Palin’s own story.

In mid-August, Palin spoke with New Yorker writer Philip Gourevitch, who was in Alaska–prior to Palin being named John McCain’s running-mate–to do a piece on “the peculiar political landscape” of the state. During his time there, the controversy regarding Monegan’s dismissal was in the news in Alaska. And Gourevitch asked Palin about it:

[Palin] said that one of her goals had been to combat alcohol abuse in rural Alaska, and she blamed Commissioner Monegan for failing to address the problem. That, she said, was a big reason that she’d let him go–only, by her account, she didn’t fire him, exactly. Rather, she asked him to drop everything else and single-mindedly take on the state’s drinking problem, as the director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. “It was a job that was open, commensurate in salary pretty much–ten thousand dollars less”–but, she added, Monegan hadn’t wanted the job, so he left state service; he quit.

In Palin’s telling–before any of this was of national interest–Monegan’s departure from the post had nothing to do with Troopergate and, in fact, he hadn’t even been fired. She had asked him to switch jobs; he had left state employment on his own accord.

Yet on Monday, the Palin side offered a much different tale. In a 19-page brief, Palin’s lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, contended that Monegan, while public safety commissioner, engaged in “an escalating pattern of insubordination on budget and other key policy issues.” Van Flein claimed Monegan had gone behind Palin’s back to work with state Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who is now leading the Troopergate investigation, on the budget for his department. And Van Flein maintained that Monegan’s “firing”–note the use of that word–came after Monegan planned a trip to Washington, DC, to seek funds for a project to combat sexual assault, an initiative that had not yet been approved by Palin.

Responding to Van Flein’s brief, Monegan said he has provided records to the Troopergate investigator, Steve Branchflower, about his tenure as commissioner, and he has continued to claim he was ousted by Palin because he refused to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law.

It is hard to square Palin’s mid-August explanation with the recent brief. Talking to Gourevitch, she suggested Monegan had not really been fired; the brief says he had. She said she wanted Monegan to take on a top-priority in another job; the brief says he was an insubordinate employee who could not be trusted. Would you give such a fellow another important job?

This is not the first Palin contradiction in this episode. She initially vowed to cooperate with the investigation. But after state legislators last week voted to issue 13 subpoenas in the case–including one for Palin’s husband, Todd–the McCain-Palin campaign on Monday said the investigation was “tainted” and Palin was “unlikely to cooperate with it.” (The subpoenas covered many top Palin aides, as well as the head of a company that handles worker’s compensation claims for the state. Branchflower told the legislators he had preliminary evidence that a Palin aide had pushed to cut off benefits to Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten.)

Palin supporters are now dismissing the inquiry as a politicized probe. (Her lawyer has asked that the inquiry be conducted by a personnel board that is controlled by the governor.) And a family matter that became a state matter is now a national matter, with spinners and lawyers trying to influence the outcome, and the McCain-Palin campaign looking to kill the legislative investigation. In the days after Palin became the Republican Party’s nominee for vice president, it was unclear how Troopergate might affect the GOP ticket. Did the McCain-Palin campaign really have much to worry about? Given Palin’s conflicting explanations of Monegan’s dismissal, there’s now more reason to believe she does have cause for concern.

Side note: People with nothing to hide…hide nothing.

16
Sep
08

…To Win An Election

Repeatedly throughout this Presidential campaign season, John McCain has levied an attack against Barack Obama saying that he is “willing to lose a war in order to win an election.” First of all, that’s BS. But that’s not the point of my post today. I just think it’s ironic that John McCain has been talking about Barack Obama’s alleged willingness to compromise in order to score political points when he himself has made one of the most egregious compromises to secure the vote of the Republican base. Tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate was one of the most blatant displays of political compromising to attach the hearts of the GOP’s foot soldiers.

So John McCain is willing to compromise experience, intelligence, and overall qualifications in order to win an election. He thought his choice would garner him votes and bump him up in the polls. And it did for a few political minutes. But as we are all seeing, it’s backfiring in a big way.

Conservatives with a conscience, conservatives with half a brain cell, conservatives who put COUNTRY FIRST and are not just blind zombies when it comes to their votes are rejecting the McCain campaign’s desperate moves and dangerous direction. Don’t take it from me. Here are three strong Conservative voices blasting McCain’s strategies and going the other way.

David Brooks writes in the New York Times that Sarah Palin is unqualified:

In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.
I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

Ross Douthat agrees at the Atlantic:

Now that we’ve seen the entirety of the Palin-Gibson tete-a-tete, I concur with Rich Lowry and Rod Dreher. The most that can be said in her defense is that she kept her cool and avoided any brutal gaffes; other than that, she seemed about an inch deep on every issue outside her comfort zone. Yes, the questions were tougher than the ones that a Tim Kaine or Tim Pawlenty probably would have been handed, but they were all questions that a vice-presidential nominee needs to be able to answer. And there’s no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy – that it’s just too much, too soon – and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage.

And in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen goes off on McCain, seizing on the Palin pick as a sign of how far gone the candidate is:

McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains — his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that’s all — but just as honorably. No more, though.

His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir — the person in whose hands he would leave the country — is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.

13
Sep
08

Troopergate Gets a Karl Rove-like Makeover

This is long, but seriously worth every second of reading it. Just some insider insight into what is going on with Alaska now that the McCain campaign has gotten its filthy hands on it. Representative Les Gara of Alaska, writes…

Politicians are good at spin. The McCain camp has brought a whole new level of it to our small state – in what looks like an effort to show they can play the same Karl Rove-like political games that have haunted this country for the last 8 years. I like Governor Palin on a personal level. But I don’t like what the McCain campaign is doing to our state. I don’t like deception. And I don’t like politics as usual.

Alaskans are starting to see evidence of a Karl Rove-like effort to stonewall what started as a non-controversial, bi-partisan ”Troopergate” investigation. A little deception here. A few personal attacks there. And the kind of spin you see at an amusement park tilt-a-whirl station.

This investigation was started by a Republican-dominated Alaska Legislature to look into Governor Palin’s conduct in seeking the termination of a State Trooper, once married to the Governor’s sister, Trooper Michael Wooten. The McCain camp wants to stop it by saying it’s a “democratic” investigation. Apart from facts, and the reputations the McCain folks don’t mind destroying, there’s not a lot standing in the way of this strategy.

Until August 29 “Troopergate” was a small state investigation Governor Palin, and every Republican and Democrat in a Republican-led Legislature had agreed was appropriate. But things changed the day Governor Palin joined the McCain ticket. His handlers went ballistic that the Governor agreed to an investigation they now needed to stop.

I know Senator McCain is now running on a political platform of ”change.” Leave aside how he’ll fight to change what he’s voted to do to this country for the last 8 years. If you ask me, the only thing he’s changed so far is Governor Palin’s position – her decision to cooperate with this once-small investigation.

This is one of those cases where there’s a clear truth. It’s a clear truth – about a bi-partisan investigation – that I hope McCain’s operatives will ultimately fail at spinning into a “partisan” plot against his running mate.

To get their way, and prevent sworn testimony from leaking out on what I suspect was probably a minor breach by Governor Palin, McCain’s operatives have come to Alaska to add invective in a state where people generally get along. They’ve chosen to vilify: 1) one of the state’s most respected public officials, Senator Hollis French; 2) the state’s most respected law enforcement official, Walt Monegan; and 3) a highly respected former DA and Victims Rights advocate a legislative committee voted 12 – 0 to hire to conduct the investigation, Steve Branchflower.

It’s the ghost of Karl Rove. Say something untrue enough times – like that Al Qaida is training with Saddam Hussein’s help – and people will believe it. Not this time. I’m not sure if I mentioned a few important facts.

Did I mention that no one ever attacked the Troopergate investigation by Alaska’s Legislature – started long before Governor Palin was placed on McCain’s ticket – until August 29? That was the day Governor Palin joined the McCain bid for the White House.

Did I mention that before the McCain camp got involved, the Governor stated of the Legislative investigation: “That being the route they choose, so be it. I’m happy to comply, to cooperate.” (KTUU.com, July 24, 2008). She repeatedly stated she’d comply, and that it was the right thing to do.

Did I mention the personal attacks against our local public officials only started after Sen. McCain sent his flacks up to our small state on August 29? They came with a mission to make America believe a Republican-initiated investigation, started with a unanimous committee vote of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats, was a “partisan” plot. That’s only a tough sell if people know the facts.

Did I mention they now claim the Legislature cannot legally proceed with an investigation into government misconduct (I thought Republicans didn’t like attorneys who made frivolous arguments), and that they are threatening to to go to court to stop it? The Governor’s attorneys started writing those letters on – you guessed it – August 29. Before then they agreed the investigation was proper.

Oh, and what about this. Last week the McCain camp put our Governor in a bizarre position. They told her to file an ethics complaint against herself! Yup, again after her VP nomination. Too weird? What’s behind this move? You guessed it. Lawyers.

To create the legal argument that the Legislature cannot investigate government misconduct, the McCain team has had her file a complaint against herself before something called the State Personnel Board. That’s a 3 member group of Republican Gubernatorial appointees – that, if it started this week, wouldn’t get an investigation done, and reported to the public, until after the November election. Convenient.

Hmmm. The Legislature has announced they’d have their investigation done – if witnesses would cooperate like they were until August 29 – by October 10. I can’t imagine why the McCain camp would prefer an investigation that doesn’t get finished until after November. Any ideas?

So what about the claim that this investigation is some sort of partisan plot against a Republican ticket? A legislative committee of 8 Republicans and 4 democrats asked former Assistant District Attorney Hollis French, a Democrat – to hire a legislative investigator in July. He did. He’s not doing the investigation. So the complaint that he’s a Democrat who supports Barack Obama is, well, weak. He’s a Democrat who supports Barack Obama, who was appointed before Governor Palin was a VP candidate. More importantly, he’s a Senator who has the confidence of a majority Republican Senate.

He once said to the press the results of the investigation are likely to be troubling. He shouldn’t have said that. But the Governor’s said it too. The newspapers have said it. We all know it. The public record already contains evidence that the Department of Public Safety was contacted roughly 20 times by Palin senior staff, and her husband Todd, about firing Trooper Wooten. The Governor has conceded that based on this evidence, the public could conclude the Department could have felt pressure from above to fire Trooper Wooten.

The investigator, Steve Branchflower, is a former DA and Office of Victims Rights head (a job he was appointed to by a Republican Legislature). He’s actually conducting the investigation. Attacking Senator French doesn’t really work if he’s not investigating the case, or making any findings. So the McCain folks have attacked Mr. Branchflower. And they’ve tried to stop him from issuing subpoenas to the witnesses now directed not to talk. Today the McCain folks suffered a setback. A bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats authorized Mr. Branchflower to move ahead to subpoena those witnesses.

And for good measure – the McCain folks are attacking Walt Monegan – the Public Safety Commissioner Governor Palin fired. The Troopergate investigation involves claims that Monegan was fired for not agreeing to fire Trooper Wooten, the Governor’s brother in law involved in a very ugly custody dispute with the Governor’s sister.

I don’t begrudge the Governor for not liking her brother-in-law. I don’t really like him either, from what I’ve read. I do begrudge those who’d attack Commissioner Monegan, a quintessential public servant who’s worked for both Republican and Democratic heads on the state and local level.

These three public servants deserve better. What they’ve received so far, is a little dose of ugly Washington politics in a state where we don’t see that stuff too often.

I stood on the sidelines when this investigation started. When Governor Palin fired Commissioner Monegan, my advice was to end the flap and just hire him back. He does good work. He’s well respected. Unfortunately, my advice sometimes isn’t that good, and the Governor didn’t agree.

Then McCain’s staff of outsiders came to town. And they began to launch personal attacks on people I respect. They started proving that the same old politics that have caused dissatisfaction with Washington insiders these past 8 years are going to be the bread and butter of the McCain campaign.

So – here I am today. I support an Obama presidency because he shares a vision I believe in. I’ve publicly supported him since the race started last year. I also think Governor Palin originally did the right thing in agreeing to take some small lumps by proceeding with a legislative investigation Republicans and Democrats, and much of the public asked for.

But unfortunately Alaska is the bull’s eye in a national presidential race today. When told by the McCain folks that she needed to change her position, she did, as a loyal running mate. I understand that.

As an Alaskan I’m not really angry at our Governor for this mess. I do blame John McCain for the ugliness he’s brought to our state this week. His folks have come to my small state to attack my friends, and people I respect, for political gain. In my book, that’s not OK. We all mess up time to time. But this crosses the line.

In small states, like small towns, people who act like the McCain folks apologize. Until that happens, I’ll keep defending 3 public servants who deserve better.

12
Sep
08

John McCain Gets Blasted on The View

Wow, these girls went nuts on John McCain! This was one of the hardest hitting interviews he’s ever had. And wow, he is ridiculous! Joy Behar really hit him hard flat out calling his ads lies. Loved it! You go girls!

And later when Cindy McCain was invited on the show, she said that her husband was a “very measured man” – hmmmm, wonder if she ever got the memo about his anger management problems. Measured? Ok, that’s one word that absolutely cannot describe Sen. McCain.

From Salon.com

The hard-hitting journalism came courtesy of none other than Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Sherri Shepherd and Elisabeth Hasselbeck (yes, even conservative sylph Hasselbeck threw down!), who welcomed McCain to their comfy couch on Friday morning as the spider welcomes the fly. As soon as he settled in and got nice and comfortable, the women proceeded to slice and dice the Arizona senator on everything from his dishonest attack ads to his stance on abortion and interpretation of the Constitution, his feelings on secularism and the qualifications of his running mate.

First up was McCain’s recent ads, including one implying that Barack Obama wants to offer sex ed to kindergartners, and another asserting that Obama used the phrase “lipstick on a pig” in reference to Sarah Palin, when in fact he applied it to McCain policy. “There are ads running from your campaign,” said Joy Behar, “now we know that those two ads are untrue, they’re lies.” Here Behar was using words that the press has been too squeamish to utter to McCain’s face. She went on, “And yet, you at the end of it say you approve these messages. Do you really approve them?” Such a simple, straightforward question. One that someone should have asked McCain days ago.

When McCain replied that his ads were not lies, Walters quickly stepped in to point out to him that “you yourself said the same thing about putting lipstick on a pig.” McCain responded that his use of the folksy turn of phrase was in reference to a healthcare plan, and Walters again cut him off, saying, “But [Obama] talked about change. He wasn’t talking about Sarah Palin.”

McCain was left twisting, his only out the weak rejoinder, “Senator Obama chooses his words very carefully.” At that moment, it seemed that McCain himself does not.

In the second segment, Whoopi Goldberg introduced McCain after a commercial break, jocularly asking if she was still allowed to call him J-Mac, then punching him in the gut with “a straightforward question … because I’m curious about your choice for vice president: Do you believe in the separation of church and state?”

Let’s take just a moment and offer a tip of the hat to Goldberg (and her colleagues), for honing in on the simplest iteration of what has been on the minds of many since they began to read about Palin’s evangelical beliefs, her reading of God’s will into the mission of Iraq, her belief in banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

Goldberg pressed McCain on whether or not, given the fact he assured her that, “sure,” he believes in secularism, he experienced “a moment of pause” before selecting Palin, since, “god forbid anything happen” to him, she might be in control and not share his views on this linchpin of our democracy.

“Judeo-Christian values were the foundation of our nation. In God we trust,” McCain unreassuringly responded. “[There was] clearly a belief that God has a plan for the world and that we should do what we can to live as good a life as we can and trust that God — in God we trust — will guide this nation and this world to a better existence. You’re entitled to … not believing in God, but I think we should respect the views of those who believe in God and believe that we are a special nation … And we believe that God does play a role, not in whether we win or lose elections, but whether we have a better world and a better future and better lives.”

Gulp?

After trying to interject about 20 “buts,” Goldberg finally was able to restate her question, which was that, since this is a nation filled not only with Judeo-Christian believers but also with “Muslims … Zoroastrians … [and] Wiccans,” as president, should he win, would McCain govern this nation “as God would have you do it, or do you govern this nation for the greater good of the people in it?”

McCain replied, “I think everybody, obviously, is entitled to their individual faiths and beliefs, including not believing in anything. But I pray every day.”

Next up was Hasselbeck. Promising McCain “no softballs coming from me, even though you have my vote,” the youngest “View” co-host asked him if he, and in turn if Palin, would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. McCain said that though he’d impose no “litmus test” on nominees to the court, “they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation” of the Constitution. Here Walters tag-teamed again, clarifying that this was simply “another way of saying ‘people who would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

When McCain responded by saying he thought “Roe v. Wade was a very bad decision, Barbara,” the “View” audience audibly booed him, and when he continued to talk up his interest in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Goldberg piped up, wondering, “Do I have to worry about becoming a slave again? … Because there are certain things that happened in the Constitution that had to change.” To this, all McCain could say was, “I understand that point. Thank you. That’s an excellent point. I thank you.” (Walters did score a lifetime’s worth of wacko points for her weird reassurance to Goldberg and Shepherd, “Don’t worry, us white folks will take care of you!”)

Finally, Barbara Walters, showing teeth she hasn’t bared in years, pressed McCain — and I mean, with a steam iron — on what his running mate meant in her interview with Charlie Gibson on Wednesday when she said she was chosen to “reform” Washington. Given that McCain himself has been a working inhabitant of the country’s capital for 22 years, what or whom, wondered Walters, was Palin supposed to reform? “You?” she asked McCain incredulously. “The Senate? Congress? The Republican Party?”

“The Democrats have been in charge of both houses of Congress for the past two years,” McCain said hopefully, clearly trying to help flesh out the Republicans’ bizarro-world story line that the liberals (cunningly disguised as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld) have been running the country.

But Walters wasn’t having it. “She was chosen to reform the government. Who is she going to reform?” she asked again. McCain tried to argue that, with a flick of her wand, his Change Maker from up north would transform everything: “The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, even the Independent. She’ll reform all of Washington!”

But Walters wasn’t mollified. “How?” she hammered. “How? What is she going to reform specifically?” When McCain replied that she would do just what she did in Alaska, like clean up earmark spending, Walters said, “She also took some earmarks.” Not as governor, McCain claimed (despite the fact that Palin put in for a load of earmarks in the past year). When McCain said she freed Alaska from debt for the first time, Walters pooh-poohed it. “OK, but what’s the biggest reform –” And that’s when McCain finally got testy, saying, “You’ve got to let me finish” and explaining how Palin gave government back to the people of Alaska. “What is she gonna do in Washington?” replied an unimpressed Walters. “The same thing,” said McCain.

This whole exchange, all of it, was not only great television, but a series of great questions from a group of people who seemed not to be interested in pussyfooting around. “The View” hosts appeared not to be worried about being labeled elitist (perhaps because their show is populist by definition) or leftist (perhaps because one of them is a staunch conservative) or sexist (perhaps because they are all women and know that to question a candidate’s actual qualifications for a job, not based on gender but on experience and beliefs and policy history, is the opposite of sexist).

But the best part, perhaps, was that after making McCain writhe in agony for the first two segments, after eating him for breakfast — Mmm! Delicious! — the ladies of “The View” were such coldblooded professionals that they were able to usher McCain’s wife, Cindy, on and kibitz with her about cookie recipes for the remainder of the show.

Top that, CNN.

12
Sep
08

Sarah Palin’s Painful Interview

I’m really sorry, but if ANYONE thinks that this woman is prepared to lead our country, whether in the #1 or #2 spot….I seriously don’t even know what to say. But I do have to give some props where they are due. I thought Charlie Gibson was going to lob softballs at Palin and let her hide her ineptitude (which is difficult). But he didn’t. He really went after her and demanded that she answer some pressing questions – which she miserably failed to do. I mean, seriously, each answer was a debacle in and of itself. Here’s the interview for your own personal painful viewing.

And again, if you think that THIS is someone who is ready to lead our nation, if you think THIS is someone who is going to talk straight to the American public, if you think THIS is the type of person who will take us into a new age of progress and reform and strength, then you can get everything you deserve. Because this will NOT happen with my vote. And I hope to God you won’t let it happen with yours. Register today at Rock the Vote’s website and make sure to stand up against this madness on November 4.

09
Sep
08

Firsthand Knowledge

This isn’t a breaking story but I think it’s worth reading, just to get a view into how those who aren’t afraid of her view Sarah Palin.

This from The Reform Candidate? on The Washington Independent

Dear friends,

So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .

Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks. :)

You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .

Thanks,
Anne

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child’s favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won’t vote for her can’t quit smiling when talking about her because
she is a “babe”.

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is “pro-life”. She recently gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn’t take positions; she just “puts things out there” and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters. She’s smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation
(1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.


The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it
with indebtedness of over $22 million.
What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a
new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later–to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office
redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she
proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today’s
surplus, borrow for needs.

She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the
basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of “old boys”. Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal–loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska’s top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure
and she had every legal right to fire him, but it’s pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation
for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some
undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a
gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to
nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects–which had been vetoed simply
because she was not aware of their importance–but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a
fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly
stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah’s mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and
experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT
•“Hockey mom”: true for a few years
•“PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
•“NRA supporter”: absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
•“Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
•“Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny +
Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I’ve always operated in the belief that “Bad things happen when good people stay silent”. Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don’t have a job she can bump me out of. I don’t belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will
cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of
Wasilla, and I can’t recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall–they are
swamped. So I can’t verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my “about 5,000″, up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the
current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.

Anne Kilkenny

09
Sep
08

Sarah Palin Plays Like a Girl

This phrase always really bugs me, but I’m going to use it with regards to Sarah Palin. Reeeeal interesting to me how she was so ferocious and fearless when she was reading a canned speech ripping Obama, but then when it comes to the media asking her REAL questions, she suddenly shies away from the spotlight and needs a friendly interviewer (Charlie Gibson) and a friendly location (Alaska) and two days of sitting down and doing multiple takes to get those answers just right.

Sooooo interesting how this all plays out. She wants to attack others with all the venom and fire possible, but then when it comes to her answering the tough questions (like about if she is a LIAR – which she is), she backs down. Hmmm, reminds me of a couple famous idiomatic expressions – (1) if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen and (2) you can dish it out but you can’t take it. Politics is a game for big kids – not little leaguers. Take a seat on the bench if you can’t play defense Palin.

08
Sep
08

We The People…Don’t Deserve Answers from McCain/Palin

An AMERICAblog reader was having lunch in Albuquerque, New Mexico today, when who should drop in for a substance-less photo opp? John McCain and Sarah Palin. And you’ll be surprised to know that when both of them were asked polite but substantive questions by the reader, they refused to answer. He’s such a maverick, that John McCain. And she has so much substance, it’s scary, that Sarah Palin. Here’s the reader’s first hand report from the afternoon that they made Sarah Palin confront a real question from a real human being:

Our family today had an interesting encounter that I wanted to share with you. We were eating at El Pinto restaurant in Albuquerque. It is the most popular New Mexican restaurant in town, a large sprawling compound with a number of dinning rooms and patio spaces.

We were eating outside in the patio closest to the main road and had just finishing lunch when I saw the McCain bus drive by! It was followed closely by a number of police motorcycles, secret service SUVS, and press vans. It was obvious they were coming to El Pinto!

We figured we’d head out and see if we could get a closer look. I decided this might be my one chance, to ask one question of each candidate. I carried Caterina (16 months) along with me to meet the candidates.

I worked my way through a number of other dinners and secret service and finally got to the patio on the other side of the restaurant. I could see John McCain ahead of me shaking hands with folks. Sorry the picture is so blurry. I had a baby in one arm and an iPhone in the other!

McCain worked his way up to me and Cat and as I shook his hand, I asked, “Sir, I respect your service but, why were you against the GI bill?” Senator McCain, paused, he looked a bit surprised at the question and then he said, “Nice to meet you.” I repeated the question and he repeated his non-answer. He quickly worked his way down the line. So much for straight-talk!

I have been genuinely curious as to why he wouldn’t support a bill so important to veterans (McCain opposed this bill from the beginning and then skipped the vote). Also, I was surprised at myself as I as I almost involuntarily prefaced my question with, “Sir, I respect your service but…” No wonder he’s gotten a free ride by the press, I think this reaction is not unique and the press must feel the same pressure that I felt. Perhaps that explains why his poor support for veteran issues isn’t well known.

Sarah Palin was next! I couldn’t resist trying for a better photo. It is still blurry, but talk about a close encounter.

Sarah first looked at Caterina said hello, and I shook her hand. I asked, “Are supporting Ted Stevens this year?” She replied, “He’s under indictment you know…his trial is in September.” I replied, “But are you voting for him?” She walked away without answering.

I don’t think this question will be answered until after Senator Stevens’ trial in September and perhaps never. After all, Ted Stevens is still running for the Senate this year and a Republican vote, corrupt or not, is still a Republican vote. I was amazed that she offered up, “He’s under indictment you know.” She’s going to need some serious handling before they let her into the wild!

I followed Governor Palin out and they stopped to purchase some salsa. This whole stop was just a photo-op and my questions, any questions were obviously not part of the script. No townhall meeting here.

After less than 15 minutes at the Restaurant the Straight-NoTalk Express headed out.

My wife Angela was at the entrance with my son Andrea holding up a home made Obama sign and shouting at McCain, Palin and the press. It made me very proud. A memorable lunch at El Pinto.

Jim, Angela, Andrea and Caterina
Corrales, New Mexico

30
Aug
08

F*cking Morons

Ok so it’s taken me until almost 11pm to cool down. I have been outraged and unable to sit down long enough to gather my thoughts into one coherent message. But I’m going to try now. I’m pissed at a lot of people today. Here’s the list.

  1. John McCain: Do you think all women are brain dead? Do you think they are all dumb as hell like your bimbo wife? It sure as hell seems like it. You think that just because you pick someone with a vagina that all the feminists who wanted to see Hillary in the White House will just automatically line up to vote for you? Seriously, this is the most disrespectful thing I’ve ever seen from a Presidential nominee. To choose someone who has NO federal political experience, who you have met only ONCE before, and who has less experience than my 14 year old sister when it comes to foreign policy is a slap in the face to educated, politically savvy women around the country. How scary would it be if McCain kicked the bucket while in office. Yeah, God forbid, but it could happen, people! He is 72 and he’s had four bouts with cancer! This isn’t some young, healthy dude. So great, imagine that. Sarah Palin taking the oath of office to be our Commander and Chief. Well, at least we know she could go to the front lines and hunt some….moose for the troops.Just because your plastic Barbie doll wife and Sarah Palin share in common the winning of beauty pageants (which still blows my mind, by the way. How did THAT happen?!) doesn’t make her fit to be the Vice President of the United States of America. And just because she is a woman, does not mean that she is Hillary. For the love of God, I can’t believe I even have to write about these two women in the same sentence. Hillary Clinton is a trailblazer, a progressive, a thinker, a stateswoman, one of the top minds in our country. Sarah Palin is Rush Limbaugh with a uterus. Sarah Palin can’t hold a candle to Hillary Clinton. So John McCain, thanks. Thanks for proving to the world that you are a f*cking moron, once again.
  2. Sarah Palin: For this woman to accept the nomination for Vice Presidential Candidate for the United States of America is egoism on 157 levels. She has no experience that makes her qualified for this job. She has never dealt with foreign policy. She governs the most detached and isolated state in the US besides Hawaii. She is only in her first term as governor and her only other political experience was serving as the Mayor of an Alaskan town of about 5,000 people. I’m sorry Sarah, but I was the President of my University that had more people than that. And the budget that I oversaw was probably bigger than yours. But I’m not accepting the Republican nomination for VP of the US.She is pro-guns, pro-creationism being taught in our schools, and pro-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. She is a mother of five children, but chooses policies to adopt as her own that will harm her children’s future immeasurably. Plus, this is just a personal pet peeve of mine, but the chick can’t speak the English language properly. Is anyone else irritated that every -ing word that she says she abbreviates? Huntin’, winnin’, speakin’, tourin’, challengin’, fightin’, flyin’, votin’….Sarah Palin, I have an abbreviation for you….you are a F*CKIN’ MORON!
  3. P.U.M.A.: Ok seriously, I love progressives. I love people that think long-term. I love people with vision and determination to make the world a better place. I feel an affinity for the progressive agenda and its policies. Therefore, I usually vote Democrat. I don’t vote Democrat on party lines but because of issues. I don’t vote for candidates because they are pretty or handsome, ugly or too fat, too skinny, or balding. I don’t vote for candidates because of their age or their gender. I try, with all my human capacity, to vote for issues and for candidates who will lead us into the future with positive goals and inspiration. Ok, so during the Democratic Primaries, I voted for HilHil. I thought she was the best candidate for the job, but this didn’t mean that I was anti-Barack Obama. In February, on that particular Super Tuesday, I supported the candidate that I felt was the total package. I still think HilHIl would make an awesome President. But, as time went on and I learned more about the candidates, I realized that there really wasn’t much difference in the candidates in terms of their policy choices, and some of Barack Obama’s ideas really resonated with me. I was disappointed because I felt that HilHil was kind of railroaded by her own campaign. I thought her managers and staff made some really stupid decisions that probably cost her the nomination. I mean, if HilHil would have spoken and looked and acted like she did on Tuesday night of the DNC, I think she probably would have won. But c’est la vie, Barack Obama took the nomination.So I riveted myself to the tv this past week and really watched the DNC. And you know what I saw? I saw happiness, I saw hope, I saw a microcosm of America really believing that they could partake in the democratic process and look to a future where their voice would be heard and heeded. And HilHil gave an amazing speech, telling us all of her commonalities with Barack Obama and how we MUST vote a progressive candidate into office, for the safety, security and sanctity of our nation.It’s not about party unity. Screw the political parties. That’s stuff of the past. Even Barack Obama doesn’t give a crap about political parties. It’s about issues. It’s about our future. It’s about our children and their children. It’s about the rest of the world. It’s about your health and your retirement and your financial security and your personal safety and your fundamental rights as a citizen of this country.

    It’s NOT about gender. And I am SICK AND TIRED of these dumbass PUMA’s or whatever the hell they want to call themselves, threatening that they are going to vote for John McCain to “teach the DNC a lesson.” Cry me a f*ckin’ river you idiots. You think that this primary was rigged? Are you serious? Ok, even if it was, so what are you going to do? Give your vote to the party that made caging lists of Florida democrats in 2000 and stole the election in the Supreme Court? You’re going to give your vote to the party who again made a mockery of our democracy in 2004 by disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters in Ohio who would have changed the course of our history? Yeah, that’s a great idea! Go for it girls.

    You women who call yourselves PUMA’s (Party Unity My Ass) are an embarrassment to women, especially to educated women who actually use their brains to make decisions. You are just as sexist and just as bigoted as the men who wouldn’t think of voting for Hillary because she is a woman. So you’re going to throw your support behind John McCain simply because he chose a person with the correct anatomical structure for you? Are you kidding me?! This has seriously got to be some sick joke that the Republicans are pulling on us. I swear, I think that the PUMA’s really are Republican women who are trying to confuse and conspire against us. I just cannot conceive of a woman dumb enough to throw her support behind a man (John McCain) and a woman (Sarah Palin) who are anti-choice, anti-gay rights, pro-guns, pro-drilling in ANWR, pro-war, pro-nukes, anti-Islam (and any other weird religion with “brown” people in it), anti-middle class, anti-public education, anti-Social Security, pro-torture….do I need to keep going? If you want to vote for a woman, and that’s alllll you care about, fine, write in Hillary’s name if it helps you sleep at night. But for God’s sake, don’t let me read another blog on your idiotic website about how McCain is going to get your vote. PUMA’s you are f*cking morons!

29
Aug
08

We Cannot Turn Back with so Much Work to be Done

Tonight, 28 August 2008, history was made and history was honored. On the 45th anniversary of the famous “I Have a Dream” speech presented by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., tonight marked the first time in this nation’s history that a man with African roots has been nominated by one of the two major parties to be its candidate for President of the United States. We are well on our way to making Dr. King’s dream a reality.

But, as Barack Obama so eloquently stated tonight, we cannot turn back now…not when there is so much work to be done. While Dr. King’s dream, that the future generations would judge each other not by the color of their skin but on the strength of their character, is tonight one step closer to being realized, we still face racial, ethnic, religious, economic, and social barriers that threaten the very foundations of our American democracy.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that has no consideration or respect for the Constitution of the United States that our forefathers gave their blood, sweat and tears to frame and bring to life.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that is more concerned with lining their pockets and the pockets of their corporate friends than helping bolster the middle class, the stabilizing force of our economy.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that has completely rejected the assertions of our first great President, George Washington, and the words agreed to by all civilized nations and memorialized in the Geneva Convention with their inhumane treatment and blatant torture of prisoners of war and enemy combatants.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that has lied to each and every one of our citizens when we asked for justification for making the grave decision to invade a sovereign nation, Iraq, that knowingly used faulty and insufficient intelligence to persuade you and your political representatives that this war was necessary, and that has willingly allowed our men and women of our honorable armed services to die, to be irreparably injured, and to be forever emotionally scarred and traumatized for absolutely no legitimate reason.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that put a Senator’s birthday party celebration as a priority over leading our nation’s federal disaster relief agencies to assist in the evacuation and protection of an entire region battered by one of the strongest and most fierce hurricanes to ever reach the Gulf Coast.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that has squandered the budget surplus left by Bill Clinton’s administration and has successfully tied the noose of staggering national debt around our necks and the necks of generations to come.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that has laughed in the face of our civil liberties and fundamental rights, spying on us, wiretapping our phone conversations, taking our citizens into custody without charge for indefinite periods of time, putting fear into our hearts and hardship into our lives. The freedom to assemble, the freedom to speak our mind, the freedom to worship, the right to vote, these have all been jeopardized by this administration one way or another.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that has placed no value on education and self-improvement. When we listen to our President speak, we should all be moved, inspired, awe-struck. Admiration for our President’s personal, professional, and academic achievements should flow easily. We should not all be able to relate to our President, for our President should be, after all, the President of the United States because of his unique abilities, not because of his commonalities with every man and woman in the country. When we listen to our President, we should feel that we need to constantly improve ourselves, our work ethic, our skills, our understanding of the world, the way we express ourselves. The President should instill a sense of wonderment in the hearts and minds of the people. But we have suffered eight years under an administration that made it simple for us, that dumbed it down for us, that treated us like children, that did not ask us to improve or to transcend, but rather just asked us to go shopping.

We have been suffering for the past eight years under an administration that shown us nothing but failure after failure after failure. John McCain has supported this administration’s failure after failure after failure. John McCain is just more of the same. We need change….drastic change. Barack Obama offers a rebuttal and a fresh change to each and every error that we have suffered under the Bush administration.

Tonight, Barack Obama took the stage to accept the nomination for his candidacy for President of the United States for the Democratic party. He did so after a week-long masterpiece of a convention with amazing branding, the newest and best technologies, and some of the most well-respected and well-spoken people in our country giving speeches supporting his candidacy. Who would ever dare to follow the likes of Caroline Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dick Durban, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and President Bill Clinton himself? Who? Barack Obama. That’s who.

Strength. Poise. Character. Sincerity. Deep understanding and respect for the Constitution. Patriotism. Intelligence. Eloquence. Presence. Depth. Morality. Humility. Compassion. Fearlessness. Courage. Determination. Loyalty. Devotion. Patience. Charisma.

They are words that have been used in the past to describe our greatest Presidents, such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln. Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy. They are words that have been used to describe historical legends, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois. They are words that we should all aspire to adopt as part of our repertoire of character traits. They are words that should describe every President this country elects. Sadly, our current President cannot claim any of these traits. John McCain can claim few of them. But these are all words that describe Barack Obama.

If there is a sign that change is needed, I believe you can find it among the youth. And the youth have spoken loudly and clearly. I pray that they use their vote as their loudest and most clairvoyant statement come November 4. All those high school and college students, all those young professionals that, as Joe Biden so truthfully told us tonight, eat cold pizza and sleep on the floor, have come together to form a movement for change and a collaborative effort to elect Barack Obama as their President to lead them into the future.

These students and young people are the future of this country. We have the most at stake because we will be living far into this country’s future, far past the administrations of George Bush, far past the administrations of Barack Obama. We have the most to gain. And we have the most to lose. All those Baby Boomers out there, all those retirees out there, the youth of America is asking you to stand with them on November 4 and vote for their future. Eight years is enough. We cannot turn back when there is so much work to be done.

Barack Obama’s candidacy has been one for the history books. The convention this whole week looked like America – men, women, children, teens, every race, every religion, every end of every political, social, and economic spectrum came to watch, to listen and to support Barack Obama for President. As the CNN cameras panned over the audience, I saw at one point two Sikh men waving American flags and moving to the sounds of Bruce Springstein’s “Born in the USA.” I saw a disabled US Army veteran and amputee in a wheelchair holding up a Barack Obama poster with the words “Change We Can Believe In” emblazoned on it. I saw young students and elderly. I saw women and men of every walk of life. This Convention was a microcosm of our beautiful and diverse nation.

In support of this diversity, the delegates chosen to represent the 50 states at the Convention were similarly representative of the nation’s population. Of the delegates, 5% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 12% were Latino, 6% were LGBT, 24% were African American, 4% suffered with disabilities, and about 51% were women. This Convention, from beginning to end, was a display of the movement that Barack Obama’s candidacy has produced among the masses of our nation.

Barack Obama’s speech tonight was presidential. As he tackled each contentious issue, took on each attack that had be levied against him, and explained clearly his policy objectives, I could not help but be reminded of the great Muhammad Ali and his famous quote, “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” This is exactly what Barack Obama did tonight. He did not rebut John McCain’s attacks with in-kind negativity. He did not barrage the audience with accusations or defensive mechanisms to deflect criticism. Instead he used the ancient art taught by martial arts masters of absorbing the attacker’s energy force from his blows and using it against him. Never could anyone suggest that Barack Obama’s speech tonight was defensive or negative. On the contrary, he was able to maintain his theme of hope while at the same time challenging effectively and efficiently each criticism that the McCain campaign has attempted to stick to Barack Obama.

Tonight, Barack Obama did not deliver merely a speech. He composed a symphony and conducted it tonight with mastery. At times becoming impassioned and quickening his delivery to rally excitement among the listeners and at other times slowing and allowing his voice to decrescendo to a low and soulful tone to allow the audience to grasp the strength and depth of his words, Barack Obama delivered the performance of a lifetime tonight. He was formidable yet uplifting, brazen yet honorable, deliberate yet dignified, brilliant yet accessible. Tonight, Barack Obama showed that he has what it takes to be presidential.

Tonight, Barack Obama renewed his commitment to the people of the United States of America. Tonight, I renewed my commitment to support Barack Obama.




Just a Friendly Reminder

Content on this site is protected by American copyright laws. Please add a live link to this blog when quoting material.

TWITTER @TheBlockFM

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.