Alpha Bitches

I wonder if Palin thought she would have it easy with Katie Couric. Couric's got a reputation (deserved or not since I don't really watch her) for being a soft and fuzzy type, and I wonder if Sarah thought she would get a female bonding type of interview rather than the tough one that Couric admirably delivered.

If Palin thought that, she don't know women. There was no way in hell Katie was going to let herself appear to be anything softer than a hard-edged news person out for the details. Couric's own reputation was at stake over this interview and if she'd lobbed softballs at Palin (like Hannity did), Couric would have been accused of going easy on Palin 'cause she's a woman. I don't think Katie was unfair at all to Palin, the questions she asked were for getting the details. It was Palin's fault she was unprepared for such a detailed interview and Palin's fault if she thought Couric would be at anything but the top of her game. This is female competition at its core, and Palin didn't suit up.

McCain and Palin just really don't get women.

Freedom of Speech: Is It Pay to Play?

Just the thing that caught my eye today. Been on vacation and not much for updating.

I am a huge proponent of free speech, often (borrowing the line from The American President) to the point of "acknowledg[ing] a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

So my initial reaction to this Pulpit Initiative is to back them. At first glance, they are correct in that "The bottom line is that no enforcement agency of the federal government should be telling a pastor what he can or cannot say from his pulpit about the Bible and his church's teaching on the issues of the hour - even if the pastor's sermon applies Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections."

Until they get to "Such agencies certainly cannot condition tax-exempt status--a status churches have always been constitutionally guaranteed since our founding--on the surrender of cherished First Amendment rights."

Where is this Constitutional right to be exempt from taxation? In fact, aren't these very churches getting the special rights so many conservatives deride by being exempt because they believe in some old man in the sky? If they want to interject themselves into the political process, why not then voluntarily give up their tax-exempt status?

I'm honestly confused by why churches have this status at all anymore. I actually think the whole charity/church tax-exempt status should be tossed out the window. Perhaps tax credits for adherence to stated goals would be a better program than the Catholic Church not having to pay god-only knows millions in taxes on their incredibly valuable properties throughout the country.

I will admit it's not a clear-cut issue for me. Freedom of Speech does trump most everything in this country as a core right. But I don't see why churches are given a tax exempt status and then asked to be treated differently from other organizations with tax exempt status. But I have a core visceral issue with the First Amendment being a pay to play situation.

You Say That So Often. I Wonder What Your Basis of Comparison Is?

I was reading this back-and-forth between David Brooks and Gail Collins (an ongoing election season feature in The New York Times and one that I highly recommend) and one comment struck me:

“I do think as a rule governors make better presidents than legislators”

You hear this a lot in presidential races. Now I understand why it’s more difficult for Senators to become presidents than it is for governors. Senators have to vote more often and on more complex legislation than executives do. They have a more complicated record by which to judge them. Governors’ jobs are more directly related to the President’s job. It’s easier to compare.

But the statement bothers me because the fact is, we don’t know how legislators perform as Presidents. Out of all the former Congressional Representatives or Senators who became President, only six went from the Congress to the White House without an interceding executive position in between. Those are:

1. John F. Kennedy in 1960
2. Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (he was formerly of the Illinois State Legislature, had held no state executive or national representative position, and had a large gap between political representation and his Presidential win)
3. James A. Garfield in 1881 (sitting Representative who had already been elected Senator when winning the Presidency)
4. James Buchanan, 1856: I’ll include him since he wasn’t a Vice President or Governor between his Senate term and the Presidency, though he was Secretary of State for 4 years which could be construed as executive experience.
5. Franklin Pierce, 1836: Like Lincoln there was a gap between his Senate term and his run for the Presidency as he too returned to private law practice.
6. John Quincy Adams, 1824: Like Buchanan, never a Governor or Vice President, but a Secretary of State.

I won’t include James Madison since he was one of the Founding Fathers. I also don’t include William Henry Harrison since he died so quickly. Warren G. Harding did go straight from the Senate to the White House, but he’d previously been a Lieutenant Governor.

Data comes from the Office of the Clerk and additional Googling.

So that’s a pretty short list of people who’ve become President without executive experience of some kind. Even shorter if you discount those two who had served as Secretary of State. And for over 150 years we’ve only had one president with no executive branch experience. So how do we even know how a legislator behaves as president? We’ve had plenty of former Vice Presidents and Governors, all with spotty records of their own. You can no more claim issues with Lyndon B. Johnson and blame it on his Senatorial background than you can George H.W. Bush. Both were Senators and VP’s, both have mixed reviews.

One of the things I’m quite glad in this race is that both of the top contenders are Senators, not Governors. I’d like to see some new criteria in the qualifications for President. For too long we’ve dismissed those of mostly legislative backgrounds and we do ourselves a disservice by not expanding the pool.

And Governor Palin’s experience pales in comparison, by scope, with Barak Obama’s: Executive management of a tiny town of less than 7,000 and a state of less than 700,000. It’s also a state largely removed from the rest of the country in interaction, diversity of industry/economy, and geography. The experience simply doesn’t translate. Her private sector experience doesn’t translate either; she was a sports reporter and a leader of a 527 group for most of her private sector experience. Nor does her education shore up any areas where she’s lacking.

By contrast, Obama is a constitutional scholar. His state legislator experience alone is for a district estimated at ~500,000. As a state Senator, his constituency grew to almost 13 million. He was a teacher, an organizer, and a legislator. He’s an accomplished author. To compare Palin and Obama is simply ludicrous. I can read bullshit in any resume, and hers is bullshit for the job for which she is applying. And then don’t even start to compare her to Joe Biden. It’s simply not possible.

In terms of experience, it’s fair to weight both Obama’s and McCain’s against each other in terms of years. But years alone don’t do it for me. It’s the quality of the experience and when it comes to McCain, the quality of the last eight years doesn’t hold up.

Honey, Where's My Super Suit?

Unfortunately, like most Democrats, we sent our super suits to the cleaners because we thought--given how supremely badly the Bush Administration has performed and how summarily they screwed over their own base--the culture war was over.

I’ve always been able to respect the fiscal differences between liberal and conservative ideology. The core of each argument has a solid base, the end state is nearly always the same. The main difference between the two ideologies is the means by which we reach that end state and within that debate a lot of good compromise and good policy can be made. Where I get nearly tyrannical in my opposition to conservatives is in the “culture war.”

The election of Bush, particularly in 2004, drove me near crazy. And the reason for my rabid hatred of him has in its foundation the people who elected him and why, at least those voting for him based on the “cultural” issues.

From Salon (apologies if you can’t see the entire article; I’m never sure what is and isn’t accessible on Salon for those not subscribed):

The culture war: It's back!

The culture war is driven by resentment, on the one hand, and crude identification, on the other. Resentment of "elites," "Washington insiders" and overeducated coastal snobs goes hand in hand with an unreflective, emotional identification with candidates who "are just like me." Large numbers of Americans voted for Bush because he seemed like a regular guy, someone you'd want to have a beer with. As Thomas Frank argued in "What's the Matter With Kansas," ideology also played a role. As hard-line "moral values" exponent and former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer told the New York Times, "Joe Six-Pack doesn't understand why the world and his culture are changing and why he doesn't have a say in it." The GOP appealed to Joe Six-Pack by harping on cultural issues like the "three Gs," gods, guns and gays.

It’s this “just like me” identification that so gets to me. Because it’s not just that they want their president to be just like them. Then want all of us to be just like them. And I don’t want to be just like them. I don’t want to take away their rights or abilities to be whatever it is they want to be. But I emphatically do not want that for myself. So when they vote in someone just like them, it’s for the underlying purpose, I suspect, to make us all the same. Joe Six-Pack has every say in the changing culture. It’s just that I don’t want to listen to him. I don’t want to live like him. I want to protect his right to live whatever way he chooses, but I’m not Joe Six-Pack. I’m more Susie Oenophile.

Turn on the television and there are plenty of wholesome programming for their kids and families. What they hate is that they want their HBO and keep it clean too. No. I want my raunchy shows on HBO and I’m willing to pay for it. I want edgier content, but I don’t expect to see it on the networks. That’s why I have cable. Go rail against the cable companies if you don’t like the way they package their programs (trust me, I could do without paying for Toon Disney and Blues Clues or whatever). But don’t rail against my culture as there’s plenty of room on cable for all of us.

Don’t like wine-drinking, latte-sipping, educated coastal types? Then stay in Kansas and stay out of my way. ‘Cause I like cuisine, fine wines, extensive and exotic travel, literary classics and writers that make me think, a film/television culture that pushes the envelope, gays, and the right to do whatever I want with my uterus. And my having that takes nothing away from the culture warriors’ lives unless they themselves let it. And if they do allow it, obviously they didn’t want it all that badly to begin with.

I want a president who is smarter, more experienced in how to use those smarts, and who has a broader vision of the world than just me, just Joe Six-Pack, or just anyone. I don’t want a president “just like me.” I’m not fit to run the country and neither are the majority of Americans.

Thank You for Tanning?

Taken from the Slog.

I find this quite ironically amusing:

Sarah Palin brought one unusual accessory to the Alaska Governor’s mansion after moving in last year: A tanning bed…

Palin had the apparatus installed in the mansion in Juneau, and a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Roger Wetherell, confirmed the account to Politico.

“She paid for it with her own money,” Wetherell said in an email.

We have to pay more than the usual attention to Palin as a potential VP not only given McCain's age, but also his health history. As in melanoma cancer. And this woman uses a tanning bed? That's just ironic.

Grow Up McCain

Here’s something I really don’t understand about the American electorate, particularly the ones that fall into both of the following two categories:

• Those who are voting for McCain, and
• Those who are extremist religionists

I know that the right-wing Christians don't actually care about the day-to-day problems of this country because they are more concerned about whether Dan Savage is raising a kid in Seattle. But forthose who are not right-wing Christian wack jobs (and with that, as with many previous attacks on the Christian right, I have barred myself from every running from office) and are voting for McCain, why are you supporting the trivialization of issues and problems that face you every day?

In 2004, the economics of either Bush or Kerry didn’t affect me. I make enough money to weather any storm then raging and the struggling middle class American didn’t describe me the way it did others. I say this not to brag, but to make a point. Today, I don’t know a single person, no matter how well off they are, who is not in some way affected by the unbelievable state our country has become. Gas prices, knowing someone (or loving someone) who is at risk in a pointless war in Iraq, job loss threatening everyone, the horrible state of our foreign affairs. Even read about the uber-rich in Vanity Fair and they’re losing millions on the sales of their homes and can’t afford to gas up their Lear jets. NO ONE IS IMMUNE!!

And yet, despite that, McCain supporters are allowing him to trivialize this campaign. While Obama tries to talk about the issues, the different plans, the ways to make America better, McCain is talking—falsely—about kindergarteners and sex ed and lipsticks on piglets. He’s reducing this campaign to the stupidity of the lowest common denominator.

For those I cannot convince to desert McCain for Obama, I beg you do one thing. Make your candidate run on the issues. Hold him to his word that he would run a different sort of campaign. Make him live up to his own promises.

I seriously don’t know if I can stand it if another election is won or lost on a distortion of issues and phony culture war scare tactics. If anyone believes that Obama really wants kindergarteners to learn about fellatio, they’re idiots, pure and simple. I however, like that Obama wants to teach five year olds how to recognize sexual abuse and report it. I think that’s a good thing. What’s not a good thing is trivializing the very real, very huge, very relevant problems in this country by refusing to address them.

McCain, you're too old not to be a grown up.

Spare Me the Founding Fathers

Every election year I end up having the conversation with someone about the Founding Fathers.

These were great men, no doubt about it. But I do not want my country run based on what the Founding Fathers intended. I want my country based on the framework they left behind.

When Sarah Palin said regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the “under god” phrase that if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers it was good enough for her, many on the left jeered (and rightfully so) because the Founding Fathers didn’t write it, nor was it even written in their lifetimes. But it’s the other part that disturbs me. If something was good enough for the Founding Fathers it was good enough for her.

• So she doesn’t want the right to vote?
• She doesn’t want children barred from strenuous labor?
• She doesn’t want slavery abolished?

You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Founding Fathers’ intentions you support when you make sweeping statements like that. It’s the reason I despise Scalia as a Supreme Court justice. Not because of his rulings, but because of what he bases his rulings on.

Interpreting the Constitution is a tricky business. But it’s dishonest to base it entirely on what you think—or even know—what the original intent of the Founding Fathers was. I for one have been glad to see the Founding Fathers’ intentions blown to bits in many cases.

Honor what they created. In many ways, it was in spite of themselves.

Stay Calm ...

People are freaking out about McCain's bump in the polls since the convention. But as his own alter-ego proved so sadly (though perfectly Constitutionally) in 2000, it's not the straight up votes, it's the Electoral College. And those numbers are still solid.

From Electoral-vote.com:
Obama 281 McCain 230 Ties 27
Senate Dem 56 GOP 44
House Dem 243 GOP 192

It's still Obama's election to lose.

Soap Opera Moms?

“In an unorthodox move, the McCain campaign has quietly started buying ad time on the national networks. Particularly targeted, according to an ad buying expert, is daytime TV, including soaps such as Guiding Light and Days of Our Lives.”

He and Palin are aware that those shows are just full of the sex, lies, adultery, pre-marital sex, teenage sex, and the like, right? All things they are against (unless it’s your own daughter). I mean, I haven’t watched soap operas in about 15 years. But they were full of that then, it can only be more so now. Don’t we have abortions on soap operas now? My sister tuned in to Days of Our Lives a few weeks ago (the three of us were devoted to Days of Our Lives) and all the characters are still there, still making love in the afternoon. What type of woman do they think watch these shows? Conservative Christians? No, poor women and women who don’t have to work and therefore who have the time to pay attention.

Do high school and college kids still watch soaps? Or was that just a blip in the Luke/Laura and Bo/Hope heyday of the ‘80s.

Think Before You Speak

GRRR! ARRRGGH!

I just watched Chris Matthews tear apart a radio talk show host for not knowing what he was talking about. Not an hour later I’m in a debate with someone on an entirely different subject who was taking an issue where he didn’t even know the definition of it.

Nothing drives me crazier than people who do that! C’mon folks, say you don’t know something and after you do a little research (like Wikipedia or Google) you’ll come back with your opinion.

This—in my opinion—is the single biggest cause of the piss-poor state of public discourse in this country. This need we all have, for some weird reason, to have a position on something whether we know what we’re talking about or not. This compulsion we seem to have that we can know a little and say a lot. Just watch The Daily Show asking small-town people about small-town values. These people have no idea what they’re talking about. But they’re voting based on what they’re saying. That’s terrifying.

Another example, from earlier this morning (yeah, three instances in one day!), was a coffee shop conversation I had with a woman about Ayn Rand. I overheard her criticizing her writing but what she really hated about Rand was her philosophy. So debate me her philosophy (which we did) but what’s that got to do with her writing style? Even when this woman would attempt to make a criticism about the actual writing style, she couldn’t get half a sentence through without resorting to what Rand was saying rather than how she said it.

Then it was patently obvious that she’d only read an article about Ayn Rand, not any of her books, since she didn’t know who Gayle Wynand was. I don't care if you don't know who Gayle Wynand is. I care only if you want to engage in a debate about Ayn Rand with me. 'Cause believe me, I know who he is.

My point being, ask questions and think before you speak. If it’s an obvious question (like how many senate seats each state has*) I will make fun of you. But I will still give you an answer. Or just wait until you get the answer before committing an opinion. There is nothing wrong, nothing embarrassing, nothing demeaning about saying “You know, I don’t know enough about that. Let me look it up and I’ll get back to you.” Or, “You know, can you tell me more about that? ‘Cause I don’t know enough to have an opinion.” Or even, “You know, I don’t know anything about it and I don’t care. Here’s another topic of conversation.” Or if you make a mistake (as I do, as does everyone), simply say something like, “Really? I thought I knew more about that. Thanks for the new information.”

I don’t remember what the particular subject was, but it was when I was in junior high and I pretended to know something about some band or book or topic or whatever and was found out in about two sentences flat. I don’t think I was ever more embarrassed. I don’t think I ever pretended to know about something I didn’t know anything about again.

*Yes Anonymous, that one’s a zing at you ;-)

Fashion Politics

All the broo-haha over the “value” of Cindy McCain’s convention outfit (estimated at $313,000) is rubbish. Now I love Vanity Fair, but they know better than anyone about the difference between estimating what something is currently worth vs. not only what it actually cost but also what the wealthy actually have to pay for these items. First off, other than the watch and the de la Renta dress (which Vanity Fair absolutely would have known a solid estimate of the price of), there is no factual numbers associated with any of the items. The 3-carat diamond earrings are estimated to cost—right now—approximately $280K, but there’s no information about the designer, the distributor, or how she obtained them. She could have gotten them at an auction (oh, even a charity auction). Same with the pearls. Take those two off the table, and the outfit’s value is dramatically reduced to $8,100. While they were able to identify Laura Bush’s as Stuart Weitzman’s, Cindy McCain’s are unidentified and estimated to be $600. Which is a good estimate for average designer shoes. My guess is that, given she’s wearing de la Renta, she probably has some high end shoe tastes. But all in all, neither she nor Laura Bush probably paid retail prices for the dresses as designers do like having high profile people strut their clothes across national television.

I don’t like the McCains anymore than VF does, but can we leave fashion out of our politics? It’s really unfair given that Michelle Obama isn’t getting the same critique. Quick searches shows her preferred designer (and the one who did her convention speech dress) is Maria Pinto who retails at Saks and Barney’s (quick search didn’t produce a price for a Maria Pinto dress, but a simple wool top is $95) as well as accessorizes with Alaia. Now I can’t price out all her accessories, but I do know Alaia shoes usually retail for at least $1,000. So let’s stop blowing Cindy McCain out of proportion for earrings that we can’t even confirm cost that much or are even real (the disclaimer in the VF piece says “All prices except Laura’s shoes and Cindy’s watch are estimates, and the jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real.”)

I’m just happy, since I have to look at them for the next two months, that they’re all at least fashionable. Laura’s bored me to tears for 8 years and Condi stopped wearing the cool boots.

Speaking of cool shoes, Manolo Blahniks fall collection has me drooling. Almost--just almost--makes me want to start job hunting.

That’s Because It’s the Right (Correct) Thing to Do

Just because FOX does something, doesn’t make it right. Well, it makes it right-wing, but not right in the sense of journalistic objectivity and ethics. And I will always chastise my side for using the other side’s tactics to achieve their own ends.

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat

“MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election … Skip to next paragraphThat experiment appears to be over … Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.”

And that’s exactly what MSNBC should have done, so Bravo. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are not, and have not been for a long time, journalists. They are opinionators, editorialists, pundits, talking heads. They may be good (in the case of Olbermann) or sexist assholes (Chris Matthews), but they are not news anchors.

Salon loses journalistic credibility by claiming that MSNBC capitulated to the right-wing because FOX still behaves badly:

“Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann's role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment.”

Because Fox News fails at all matter of journalistic standards is not a reason for MSNBC to follow it down the path. You do not defeat or correct bad behaviour with equally or even worse behaviour of your own.

The criticism leveled against NBC for using one of its most partisan (Olbermann) and one of its most vitriolic (Matthews) anaylsts as anchors is sound, no matter who it is coming from.

I did not spend eight years arguing with right wingers about the ethics and tactics of Fox, the right-wing wackos, and the Bush Administration about the so-called liberal media only to have that same defended media start behaving exactly like Fox.

Shame on Salon for promoting the very tactics they despise.

So Why Elect Him Then?

McCain takes on GOP and Bush along with Obama

"Campaigning after the convention, McCain has not offered specific solutions to problems, saying instead he will reach out to Democrats to find answers. He said he would have more than one Democrat in his Cabinet."

McCain has a self-identifying Democrat speak for him at his convention, looks to Democrats to provide answers and share credit, and wants Democrats in his administration. So why not just elect Democrats then?

My Powers of Prediction ... They Fail Me

I predicted just a bit ago that the first interview would go to FOX. It's actually ABC.

Palin offers first TV interview to ABC News

You know the drill, cross-posted to Pandora's Politics.

The Bush Strategy Regarding the Media, Just More Obvious

A while ago, on a liberal e-mail alias I belonged to, I outlined what happened to the media under the Bush Administration. Without a lot of boring detail, what essentially happened is that journalists (that includes TV, print, and photo journalists) were slowly and systematically stripped of access depending on the tone of their coverage of the Bush Administration. This put journalists in the position of sticking to their ideals/ethics or losing their ability to make a living. I called it the boiling the frog strategy of controlling the media.

Now the McCain/Palin camp is doing something similar in refusing the media access to Sarah Palin because of the media’s “piranha” style “attacks” on her family. They’re saying if the media doesn’t treat her nice, then they don’t get to talk to her. Then they’ll carefully select one organization (hmm. Wonder which one? FOX maybe?) that gets access to her and the country will be so hungry for information on her they’ll flock to it. So then all the other media outlets will have to agree to play nice to get access to her, and voila, the media is fully controlled by the Republican Party again. I think they made it a little too transparent this time, though.

I sincerely hope the media is tired of being played like this. Yes, they’ve made their own significant mistakes, and yes, they should be sticking to journalistic ethics and have to take some responsibility for their own mistakes. So I would hope that at some point in the next two months the media shows some backbone and a desire not be made a patsy of again.

Already I like the New York Times refusal to back down regarding their coverage of her to date. Of course the NYT is the favored target of the Rove machine, but they are still the “newspaper of record” so they need to be part of leading the charge.

Party of the Stupid?

This was a fact that was raised in 2004 and I’m pleased to see a conservative fellow (literally fellow at the American Enterprise Institute) point it out. The entire article,The Vanishing Republican Voter, is a great read and covers much more than the one area I highlight below, but this particular area is what disturbs me most about our current political arena.

“At the same time, conservatives need to ask ourselves some hard questions about the trend toward the Democrats among America’s affluent and well educated. Leaving aside the District of Columbia, 7 of America’s 10 best-educated states are strongly “blue” in national politics, and the others (Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia) have been trending blue. Of the 10 least-educated, only one (Nevada) is not reliably Republican. And so we arrive at a weird situation in which the party that identifies itself with markets, with business and with technology cannot win the votes of those who have prospered most from markets, from business and from technology.”

No party should be the party of the stupid. Since we only have two major political parties, neither should rely upon stupidity to win. That is not helpful in a democracy. I don’t like it when my side wins because of the stupidity of the other side. I would like to be able to hold serious debates about serious issues, such as the inequality divide that this article primarily focuses on, and understand that the end state of both ideologies is nearly identical, it’s how to get there which is under debate. I would like to take all these social issues off the agenda. Same-sex marriage should be a simple no brainer, marriage in a civic sense should be available to any couples wishing to engage in it. Let religions dictate who can marry in their faiths. The abortion debate needs to stop. Don’t like it? Don’t have one. I am sick of these topics dominating the national stage and forcing me to vote for a party to defend my uterus or support my homosexual friends and family members instead of having real debates about the economy, the environment, healthcare, etc. They are noisome distractions designed to sway the “Low Info Voter,” a term I’m just now starting to hear to describe the major demographic that gets their information from shows like The View or Ellen. The right can sneer all they want, but the folks who watch John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and listen to NPR are consistently better informed about the actual events going on in the world than those who watch daytime television talk shows and FOX News.

Speaking of the news shows, it seems Sarah Palin is skipping the Sunday morning circuit immediately following the convention. Very interesting. I wonder which channel she will eventually show up on? I saw an exchange between Chris Matthews (ew) and Pat Buchanan (ew) about this very thing and found myself in the disgusting position of having to agree with Chris Matthews. Pat argued that the McCain campaign didn’t have to make the round of press shows, and while technically he’s right—there’s no law saying he has to—to avoid the mechanism by which the vast majority of the country learns about their nominees for the highest office in the land is despicable in my opinion. It continues the appeal to the stupid, the low-info voter, the barely aware Americans who hear things fourth-hand and pretend they know what’s going on.

BTW, I am not saying that everyone who votes Republican is stupid. I know that many people vote Republican because they deeply disagree with the path Democrats want to take. But if the majority of the Republican base is the least educated in this country, then that will make it the party of the stupid, even if it retains a minority of educated elites that run it.

Finally! Investment in Infrastructure

You can ask any one of my friends about how I've been blathering on for the last two years at least that this country needs to seriously re-invest in our infrastructure. Bridges, power grids, new power sources, etc. Investment like that pays off. People work, they pay taxes, they consume (and therefore pay more taxes) and are generally more productive over all. It's what FDR did to get us out of the Depression. Cutting taxes and telling Americans to shop their way out of a disaster is stupid. Investing in this country's infrastructure is smart.

So I'm quite pleased that on the news of today's even higher-than-expected unemployment rate, that's precisely what the Obama campaign is proposing:

McCain, Obama offer different plans to stop job losses
"... Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) told reporters by phone today that Obama would cut taxes for 95% of working Americans and combine that with a new fund for infrastructure projects, which would include aid packages to states that have delayed these projects ... McCaskill said this program would put 1 million people to work in the US."

This pleases me.

Just Say NO ... to Republicans

From previous political posts I think it’s obvious I’m not an ardent Obama fan. Nevertheless—unless he backhands Michelle on national television or some such similar act—he has my vote locked in. Obama hits on most of my core issues, pro-choice, environmental, health care, get the hell out of Iraq (and yes, I know that means going heavier into Afghanistan, I agree with that). He’s smart, articulate, and I like to see glass ceilings get shattered by smart, articulate people.

But no matter who was the Democratic nominee (even if it were Edwards who I DID NOT LIKE AT ALL), I would still never vote for McCain. McCain is anti-choice, limp at best on the environment, and continues to support the Iraq war. With him in office, I am convinced we will be at war with Iran within two years. McCain is a liar and twists himself into Cirque du Soleil impressive contortions to court the very dangerous, very psychotic religious right. His pick of Sarah Palin as his VP is but the latest in that courtship. I frankly think that man isn’t firing on all synapses since the cruelly uncomfortable (cruel to us) hug he had to give Bush at the 2004 convention. I think the act of supporting the man who had so evilly attacked McCain during the 2000 election literally shut down some lights in the man’s brain.

McCain is also clueless when it comes to fiscal responsibility and the social infrastructure. The tremendous debt Bush has run up cannot be dealt with by keeping taxes low and cutting spending. How does he think he’s going to handle the credit/mortgage crisis that his party let idiots get themselves into? As much as I would love to see the sub-prime losers just lose their homes, I don’t want them camping out on my 4.5% 30-year fixed doorstep. Hey, I used to make a fair bit of money (and will again when I go back to work), I don’t like taxes either. I like kids growing up stupid even less. I like refusing to give change to freezing homeless people even less. The fact is, when the economy starts sucking, even upper middle class people have to see the poor and it disturbs them. And they start demanding government do something about it. So which programs is he going to cut to pay down this ginormous debt? ‘Cause I kinda doubt he’s going to cut all that corporate welfare that’s out there.

The one thing McCain has done that pleases me is that he gave me such a thoroughly enjoyable butt of jokes with Sarah Palin. I didn’t even need Bristol. She was just icing on the cake. And no, I don’t feel at all bad about picking on Palin’s daughter. Palin knew when she accepted the nomination that her daughter was going to be tabloid fodder. If dear old fundy mommy is ok with her daughter being held up to national (hell probably international) ridicule, then who am I to disagree.

But even if McCain were the same man he portrayed to be in 2000 (when he actually had my respect, if not my support, I was firmly a Gore girl), or even if a Republican that I did respect were running, I would not vote for a Republican. This party should not be rewarded for its monumentally horrendous performance over the last 8 years. They should be sent into a full scale timeout in the corner of the mall to contemplate its actions and think about what it did wrong. No party that has performed so badly, so expensively, so horrifically, should be allowed to hold power for at least as long as it took them to fuck everything up. By that point, a new branch of the party will have risen up, thrown the neo-cons and fundies out, and actually become a viable party for people like me to even consider again. By then the Democrats will have surely done their share to fuck things up, or the Independents will have risen.

But for now, Just Say No to Republicans.

I Loves Me a Good Soap Opera

Making fun of Sarah Palin is just way to easy. And it’s enjoyable as well. As much fun as making fun of Dan Quayle was 20 years ago. I didn’t watch the speech, I was enjoying company and didn’t get around to it. Since my vote is already locked down, I don’t tend to spend much of my time listening to either side drone on. I did listen to Lieberman’s speech, but only by accident. I had NPR on while doing house work.

The difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is lipstick? Who says shit like that? Oh yeah, Miss Congeniality does. And I love the news item today that Jamie Lynn Spears sent burping cloths to Bristol Palin. That’s very sweet considering McCain used Jamie Lynn’s sister in an attack ad on Obama.

This line from Giuliani confuses me: “She already has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket.” Which means she has more executive experience than John McCain as well, right? So her mayorship of an itteh bitteh town and less than two years of governor is all the qualifications one needs for president? Well then, put her at the top of the ticket and let McCain take the VP slot. Already it’s looking like it’s an Obama vs. Palin race, instead of against McCain. Which in many ways it is since McCain will probably kick the bucket in office if he has to deal with the stress of the mess that Bush leaves behind.

I will agree with one comment that Giuliani made. He “…launched an attack on people who have questioned whether Ms. Palin will have enough energy to focus on the vice presidency as the mother of five. ‘How dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president,” Mr. Giuliani said. “How dare they do that? When do they ever ask a man that question?’ ” Absolutely correct. However much fun I want to make of Palin, her hypocrisy, her lies, and her utter lack of experience, sexism doesn’t play a part of it. However, I also strongly disagreed with John Edwards decision to run given he has minor children and his wife has cancer. I strongly doubted his ability to be a good father/husband and a president. The media also questioned his decision, but certainly not as loudly as they are disparaging Palin as a mother. So yeah, the media needs to back off on that particular front.

Largest state in America? Since when does sheer land mass, most of which I’m sure she wants to pipe over and drill down in, count towards executive leadership?

This is fun. Much fun. All quotes above are taken from NYT article covering the RNC and Palin’s speech.

GOP Convention Commentary

Am a the only one who thinks it's hilarious that the GOP doesn't feel they can have a convention without a Democrat there to speak for their candidate? Zell Miller in 2004 now Joe Lieberman* in 2008?

*Despite his repeated claims during his speech, Lieberman is NOT a Democrat.

Fundy Christian's Teenage Daughter Knocked Up

This is more fuel for my conspiracy theory fire, posted here.

Bristol Palin is Pregnant

“Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced moments ago that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant and is planning to keep the baby and marry the father … According to Reuters, McCain campaign officials knew about Bristol's pregnancy during the vetting process … “

Um, from the school of “What the Hell was McCain Thinking?”

Being a good liberal/libertarian and Democrat, I normally could care less about a knocked up teenager’s affect on the political process. But this is the daughter of the VP nominee of a party that thinks abstinence-only sex education is the way and the cure and the light of teenage pregnancy. And spends lots and lots of money on it. And this same VP nominee is personally a proponent of that policy and a fundamentalist Christian to boot. So what happened? And why on earth, since McCain did know about it, would he pick Palin as his nominee knowing that this would come out and be a news item no matter what. Why would a campaign do that?

Unless they were throwing the election? Unless they wanted the focus to be less on her qualifications and more on her qualities as a mother, a “bad” one by all the beliefs she herself holds?

This just gets weirder and weirder.