What Decisions Defined the Bush Presidency?

Since I was unable to generate any discussion with my first post, I'll try to stir up some energy with this one.


What decisions defined the Bush presidency?


Right now is an awkward time to look back at the Bush presidency. A good number of Americans (the 53-54% who voted for Obama) would say it was a disaster. Although I don't share their view, I won't stick my neck out to defend Bush either. In this piece I will try to outline the good and bad decisions that led to the strong negative sentiment in the USA and around the world as a result of eight historic years with President Bush. I won't cover everything, but I'll do my best to outline the decisions that historians will highlight to define Bush's legacy.


Most American's don't remember but Bush inherited a signifigant recession in January 2001, primarily caused by a collapse in the stock market after the internet bubble burst and the 9/11 attacks which occured shortly thereafter. President Clinton's much talked about surplus got sucked up bailing out the country during the recession from 2001-2003. In response to the challenges that the country faced, Bush made five major policy decisions in his first term. I'll start by describing the three major domestic decisions, and follow it up with a outline of the two international choices.


Bush's 2000 campaign had three domestic proposals, the first was to lower taxes, the second to create a national education program, and the third to provide a prescription drug plan for seniors. Each of these proposals were passed in his first term. Each brought benefits and subsequent problems.


Most economists will argue that Bush's reduction in taxes helped pull the economy out of the last recession, however they also left a signifigant budgetary hole which we are still dealing with today. His tax cuts were primarily targeted at higher income Americans, based on the thinking that their spending and investment provides greater net economic growth than tax cuts for lower income earners. For the last recession the tax policy worked and was the right decision. It's questionable whether low taxes on high income earners is still necessary to fight the current recession.


It became apparent throughout the 1990's that America's education system was falling behind its international competitors. The system was a relic of our small 'r' republican tradition. American school's were run and regulated by the states. In effect the USA had 50 different education policies. The Bush team correctly recognized that a national bill was needed to increase America's educational competitiveness. The product was No Child Left Behind which like the tax cuts has strengths. Any non-partisan observer will recognize that teachers and schools, like people in the business world and businesses themselves, need a system that holds them accountable for their performance. No Child Left Behind does this through testing and incentives. The bill's major blunder however is its lack of funding from the national level. NCLB still leaves education funding up to the states rendering it to be an unfunded mandate crippling state budgets across the country. Thus, Bush's second decision to push for a national education bill was the right decision based on strong ideas, nevertheless his subsequent refusal to fund it properly was a poor decsion.


Part of America's strength is the support that we provide for our elderly. The pillars of this support are Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. American's tend to forget, but when Lyndon Johnson's Great Society theme created Medicare/Medicaid there was a future promise for a prescription drug plan for seniors. With rising healthcare costs over the last few decades, seniors have been squeezed more than the middle class. Bush's Prescription Drug bill was intended to "ease" seniors pain. Like his tax cut and education bills the drug bill was the correct decision, but arguably poorly enacted. The bill provides relief for seniors but also has huge monetary benefits for drug companies which siphon billions of discretionary funds from the budget every year. President elect Obama recognizes the bills strengths, but has argued for major financial changes which allow the government to reduce its overall costs through use of generic drugs and national negotiation on drug prices. In hindsight, Bush's drug bill was the right decision, however like NCLB was improperly funded. It seems that that has become a theme of the Bush administration, passing legislation which attacks the problem in the correct way but neglecting to properly fund it and letting the national budget go to ruin in the process.

This brings the Bush Administration to what will ultimately define its legacy, the decisions to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was the right war at the right time. Like all wars in history mistakes have been made, but we are there for the right reasons. Iraq is a whole other animal. For the Bush team 9/11 changed the game. It was a watershed moment where America lost its invicibility and any and all threats had to be examined like they were possible. To a certain extent it both paralyzed the administration and gave it free reign to do whatever it wanted. Bush's team, paralyzed by fear, considered Iraq, which in hindsight was little or no threat, to be a major threat in an age of terror. Contrary to popular belief, the war almost didn't happen.

In the summer and fall of 2002 most of the world was convinced that Iraq was a threat, that it had weapons of mass destruction, that Sadaam terrorized his people, and that he would be willing if given the opportunity to support terror against America. These beliefs in hindsight were mostly all wrong. During this same period a small but historically signifigant battle was ongoing in the Bush administration. On one side stood Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on the other Colin Powell. Historically hawks, Cheney and Rumsfeld presented their case to Bush for a pe-emptive war against Iraq based on the the beliefs outlined above. Powell on the other side urged caution, and encouraged Bush to not take action against Iraq. Ultimately, Cheney and Rumsfeld won and Bush made the decision to go to war. The decision was actually made prior to the special UN session in which Powell presented the case for war in November 2002. The irony of history is that Powell, performing his duties as Secretary of State, presented the reasons for a war that he did not support.

It was Bush's decision to side with Cheney and Rumsfeld that will ultimately go down in history as his most important. To this day, the USA has done its best to win a war it probably should not have started. It is because of the honor and compassion of America and the US military that Iraq, after being destroyed has a chance to become a state again. Americans can rightfully be distressed about the decision to fight the war and the mistakes made along the way (esspecially Abu Ghraib), but at this point it is America's war not Bush's. It goes without saying that finding a humane way out will have an incalcuable effect on millions of humans around the world.

Although each of these decisions have led in part to a majority negative view of the last eight years (not to mention the mis-placed push to partially privative Social Security and the Administration's poor response to Katrina), there is a positive story to tell. It has been Bush's leadership decisions and creation of the Department of Homeland Security that have protected the country from a second terrorist attack. Bush also has a positive legacy in Africa, where his efforts to prevent hunger and fight AIDS have benefitted millions of poor Africans.

So where have these decisions left America today? I'll answer that question in a later post about the challenges that Obama faces.

Today's the Day!

Please, go Vote!
:-D

Happy Halloween!

http://www.headzup.tv/wuhzup/index.php

Why Obama will win

I want to start off by saying that I am excited to be a contributor to this blog. I was able to read some of the content and consequently was forced to think analytically about the world and this upcoming election. My plan for contributions is simple. I hope to post at least once a week - usually on Sunday morning, and will add other postings at my discretion. Please, be gentle when judging my spelling and grammar. Throughout my youth I never received and A in English. I would also like to disclose my political leanings before I start my first post so readers can be comfortable reading my posts in the future.

I consider myself to be a moderate but lean right. I am registered non-affiliated. I will vote next Tuesday. I studied political science and international relations in undergrad and attempt to view politics through a prism of scientific analysis. I am not without bias, but I attempt to mitigate its effect on my analysis, and I work hard to engineer loaded opinions out of my presentation. It will ultimately be up to the readers judgement to discern if my postings support the view I have of myself.

WHY OBAMA WILL WIN

Contrary to popular opinion major presidential elections are not won or lost based upon a candidate's positions on issues. There are three main reasons for why one candidate will win an election over another.

The first is the macro situation as defined by the electorate in the run-up to the election. This situation can be summed up with two questions, "Are you better off today then you were four years ago? and Is the country headed in the right direction?" The second involves the extent to which the electorate identifies itself with one or the other candidate. The third depends upon the turnout of each candidate's political base on election day.

These three indicators are intertwined. The first can be easily measured by opinion polls, and often these questions are asked by pollsters during the cycle. The second and third are more difficult to quantify but are reflected in political enthusiasm and positive/negative headlines in the media. Obama is currently leading in all three and has been throughout this cycle.

For the better part of Bush II's second term the majority of Americans have considered themselves worse off than they were at the start. This is an advantage for Obama. In most elections this influences independent voters to vote for the party not in power and tends to depress turnout for the party that is in power. Obama, or any generic Democrat, started out with a lead in the 2008 Presidential election because of this first indicator. His lead has been enhanced by the economic crisis facing the globe. It would be difficult to argue, even for the most persuasive debater, that the country is currently headed in the right direction. This indicator would point to a strong showing for Obama.

Human beings identify with each other based on a plethora of criteria. The major identifiers are primal. They tend to be race, gender, family (tribe, community, nationality). The less prominent but likely more important involve an individuals personal self-esteem and how that esteem is actualized and reflected through the actions of others. Suffice to say judgement of an other's intelligence, personality, and presentation against oneself is the driver of these primary identifiers. Simply this is the likability factor. Obama, because of his eloquence, grace, looks, and sense of perspective wins significantly over McCain in this issue. He is more appealing to the eyes and ears. In fact he is the most appealing candidate in my lifetime (disclosure: the author of this post is 24 years old). Because of his appeal, more people will see themselves in him-be convinced by his political proposals and consequently pull the lever for him.

As far as the third indicator is concerned, it is heavily dependent upon the first two. Obama has become the benefactor of a national constituency. This constituency is unhappy with this countries direction and their place in it, and they are in search of a leader who makes them feel good about their own and the country's collective future. Consequently this constituency contributes enthusiastically to Obama's campaign, both monetarily and voluntarily. The macro tide and his overwhelming popularity are pervasive in this cycle. More Americans have registered Democrat than Republican this year as a whole in the US and in a majority of the battleground states. Obama has also received significantly more monetary contributions than McCain or the Republican party in general. These advantages allow him to put out more political adds in the battleground states and direct more foot soldiers nationally. This 'enthusiasm' snowball will benefit him greatly on election day and ultimately lead to his victory.

Some readers may not support this post's view of major indicators for the imminent winner in the 2008 Presidential elections. A regression test should add weight to the analysis. Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 is a good place to start but most Presidential winners can be predicted by this model. Going into the 1992 election the US economy was slowly pulling itself out of a recession but sentiment among the voting public was still negative. Many Americans considered a change in party to be a positive thing both for themselves and for the country. Both of the questions that encompass the first indicator pointed to a Clinton victory. Clinton was also more likable then the first Bush. He was younger, better looking, and connected better through rhetoric with the electorate. The second indicator, consequently pointed to a Clinton victory. The third is slightly more difficult to argue for but still persuasive. Clinton's political base was not as strong as Obama's currently is, however he benefited from having Ross Perot in the race. Perot siphoned off roughly a fourth of Bush I's base which, because electoral politics is a zero-sum game, ushered in a Clinton victory.

I could analyze most other Presidential elections ad infinitum using this model but will bore you no longer. I look forward to your responses.

Ponder the Following...

I received this in my email- Ponder the following...

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,
including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to painkillers but also acquired them illegally through he r charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political
scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline
problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on
many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality,
do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative
qualities in another when there is a color difference.

Educational Background:

Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a 0ASpecialization in
International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude


Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)


John McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters -journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

The Washington Post wants Barack Obama for President

Here's why:

"Barack Obama for President"
Friday, October 17, 2008; Page A24

"THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.

Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.

Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.

A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.

The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.

Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks -- indeed, over two years of campaigning -- strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.

ON THE SECOND set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.

But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.

Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.

We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.

IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.

But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, 'our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.'

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment."

Obama vs. McCain On Small Business Issues

Provided by Greeks for Obama

John McCain:
-Has a tax plan that favors big corporations instead of small businesses. His plan would reward America's 200 largest corporations with almost $45 billion a year in tax cuts, including $1 billion in tax cuts to each of the eight largest corporations in America, including Exxon.
-Has a health care plan that would undermine the employer-based health care system by eliminating the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, a change that 74 percent of members of the National Federation of Independent Business oppose.
- Voted against providing tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees
-Voted against providing targeted capital gain cuts for small businesses.
-Voted against $11 billion in tax relief for small businesses.

Barack Obama:
-Will lower taxes for the vast majority of small businesses. According to the Tax Policy Center, nearly 99 percent of small business owners would see no tax increase under the Obama plan.
-Will eliminate all capital gains taxes on small and start-up businesses to encourage innovation and job creation.
-Will offer a refundable Small Business Health Tax credit of up to 50 percent to help small businesses provide quality health insurance to their employees.
-Will provide much-needed relief for high energy costs by granting American workers a $500 emergency energy rebate.
-Will implement the Women-Owned Business contracting program that was signed into law by President Clinton but never implemented by President Bush.
-Will strengthen Small Business Administration programs that provide access to capital to minority-owned businesses.

Frightening?

I personally find this to be frightening. How about you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0

I've Always Liked Christopher Hitchens...

"Vote Obama. McCain Lacks the Character and Temperment to be President. And Palin is Simply a Disgrace."

Love this Article

Diagramming Sarah
http://www.slate.com/id/2201158/

How could a man like this be president in 2008?

Special Note: This list is a work in progress that will be continuously added to.

I don’t know how familiar you are with the situations I’ve included in this post but if you’re not- I’d advise you to become familiarized with them. Only because, if you feel the way I do, someone who exhibits the following qualities is not someone who should be considered for the position of President of the United States in the 21^st Century. It’s troubling-unless, of course, you approve of racism, sexism, and the willingness to constantly make bad jokes to be inherent in the leader of your country. The character of a man who would get himself into the following situations is not a good one. Do you want a man of bad character as your President?

10 Reasons (so far) why it’s scary that McCain is being seriously considered for America’s Presidency in the 21^st Century:

1. He jokes about Bombing Iran.
Is it funny, really, to joke around about bombing another country?

2. When McCain is given the chance to explain, he defends his horrific joke by telling those who didn’t approve of it to "get a life".

3. He insulted an entire continent of people by using the word “Gook”.
McCain said in 2000: "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live".
The exact etymology of the world “Gook” is unknown, but in general it is a racial slur referring to Asians. Now, we can all sympathize with him for having been a Vietnam POW but couldn't he just say he hates his captors and will for as long as he lives rather than using a racial slur to insult a whole race, or rather, continent, of people?

4. McCain doesn’t acknowledge when his close followers or supporters say racist things.
"This racial insensitivity suggests that there is something disturbing is going on here... if there was no specific conscious intent to do harm that means this grows out of a pattern of habit- that it's just a natural reflex- and that one interchangeable, African American, multi-racial person is as good as the other- or they're indistinguishable - and I think at that level it's pretty problematic."

5. McCain exhibits a sexist (and disgusting) sense of humor by joking around about women enjoying being raped.

6. McCain exhibits a sexist (and mean) sense of humor by making fun of Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000930.htm andhttp://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html

7. McCain doesn’t seem to have the values he says he does:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

8. McCain the “Maverick” sells out on points that should be important to him in order to gain footing with the Republican Party. I.E. Voting for torture even though he was.

9. McCain’s political campaign ads say a lot about him. Whether or not it be him accusing Obama of wanting to give kindergartners sex education or comparing him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. “It's so easy to see the ad for what it is and read "black man, promiscuous young white women, wink wink."- Sherman Yellen
Through these ads we can see McCain's desperate attempts to slander Obama’s image with the American people.

10. People who have seen this article argue it’s not the most credible news source, including me, but after reading the above aren’t the things in this article hard not to believe?

NEWS ALERT: Sarah Palin finally has answers to the questions she was asked over a week ago!

Regarding Sarah Palin's Fox News Interview with Carl Cameron:

I'm so relieved to hear that Sarah Palin finally has come up with her answers to the questions (ones that would be able to shed some light on her values, views, and where she stands on issues) that Katie Couric asked her over a week ago. Ironic, though, that she couldn't answer them in the moment, right? I guess she needed to check back with the McCain campaign on what publications she should have followed and what supreme court cases she should disagree with before she gave definitive answers?

I find it quite incredible how Palin could say that she was annoyed with Katie Couric who asked her what she considered to be unfair questions that were meant to make her look unknowledgeable. Really, the questions that Couric asked, in my opinion, were again ones that would give us a better understanding of Palin not only as an informed US citizen but also as to why she is qualified to be in the second highest seat in, presumably, the world.

From what Palin says in this interview with Carl Cameron, it seems to me she was looking more for questions that would lead her to being able to bash Obama and his views when really the intent of these interviews was to tell us more about Sarah Palin. Way to admit to wanting to take the focus off yourself, Sarah.

Finally, I especially love how she makes herself out to be a victim of media elitism and states her belief that Katie's inquiry as to what publications she's read (over the years and before she was tapped for VP) that would have given her the world views she holds today, was instead Couric's intention to suggest that because Palin is up in Alaska she's not in tune with the rest of the world. We all know (I hope) that's a load of crap.

See for yourself, here. (I'm mainly focused from 3:50 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy7B0O6LPCo&feature=related

"Sarah Palin By the Numbers"

I found some interesting notes by Dan Kurtzman regarding Sarah Palin's actual record, including sources, which seems to contradict the things she's said she's done. So I thought I'd post it let you take a look at it yourself...

Sarah Palin, by the Numbers

"2007: the year in which Sarah Palin first obtained a passport (Source)

312: the number of nights during her first 19 months in office that Palin charged taxpayers a "per diem" totaling $16,951 forstaying in her own home -- an allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business (Source)

$500 to $1,200: the fee that Wasilla charged rape victims to pay for post-sexual assault medical exams, after the city cut funds during Palin's tenure that had previously covered the exams (Source)

$150: the cash payment offered by the Palin administration to hunters who turn in legs of freshly killed wolves gunned down from airplanes (Source)

3: the number of times during her first few weeks as mayor that Palin inquired with the Wasilla librarian about banning books (Source)

3: the number of months after the censorship discussion that Palin fired the librarian (Source)

100: the approximate number of Wasilla residents who rallied to support the librarian, prompting Palin to withdraw her termination letter (Source)

0: the number of foreign heads of state Palin has met [before being tapped for VP] (Source)

0: the number of commands Palin has issued as head of the Alaska National Guard (Source)

2: the number of times in Palin's ABC News interview that she said the word 'nucular' (Source)

0: Wasilla's long-term debt when Palin took office in 1996 (Source)

$18.6 million: the long-term debt Palin racked up by the time she left office in 2002, amounting to about $3,000 per resident (Source)

$50,000: the amount of city funds Palin used without authorization to redecorate the Wasilla mayor's office, including adding flocked, red wallpaper that made it look 'like a bordello,' according to a former Wasilla City Council member (Source)

33: the percentage by which Palin increased the budget of Wasilla during her tenure, despite billing herself as a fiscal conservative and champion of smaller government (Source)

25: the percentage by which Palin raised the local sales tax in Wasilla to pay for a sports center, despite claims that she cut taxes (Source)

$27 million: the total amount of federal earmarks Palin secured for Wasilla's town of 6,700 people while she was mayor, thanks to the help of a Washington lobbyist with ties to indicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and convicted felon Jack Abramoff (Source)

3: the number of times John McCain specifically criticized earmarks requested by Sarah Palin when she was mayor of Wasilla, citing them as examples of wasteful spending (Source)

$453 million: the total amount of earmarks Palin has asked U.S. taxpayers to fund for Alaska projects over the past two years, despite McCain's insistence that she hasn't sought earmarks or special-interest spending from Congress (Source)

$506.34: the amount of federal earmarks Alaska residents will receive per capita in 2008, the highest level of any state (Source)

$223 million: the earmark secured for the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' that Palin initially supported (Source)

$223 million: the amount of money designated for the 'Bridge to Nowhere' that Palin ultimately used for other projects, rather than returning it to the federal government (Source)

20: the percentage of domestic energy that Palin claims Alaska produces (Source)

3.5: the actual percentage share of domestic energy Alaska produces (Source)

0: the number of people in America who know more about energy than Sarah Palin, according to John McCain (Source)

$600,000: the loss at which Palin sold the governor's jet after making a show of placing it on eBay. It was eventually sold to a Palin campaign contributor who paid $2.1 million (more than 20% less than the original $2.7 million purchase price). (Source)

1: the number of private tanning beds Palin installed in the governor's mansion after taking office (Source)

1.5: the approximate number of hours Palin spent on a refueling layover in Ireland, which the McCain campaign cited as part of her foreign policy experience (Source)

0: the actual amount of time Palin spent in Iraq during a 2007 visit to the region, despite the McCain campaign's claim she had visited the Iraq battle zone. She never made it beyond the Khabari Alawazem Crossing in Kuwait. (Source)

2006: the year in which Palin declared she favors abstinence-only education and that 'the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support' (Source)

2008: the year in which Palin's 17-year-old daughter was impregnated by a self-described 'f***ing redneck,' who wrote on his MySpace page 'I don't want kids' and 'ya f*** with me I'll kick ass' (Source)

9: the number of U.S. Geological Survey studies concluding that the habitat of Alaska's polar bears is threatened by global warming, which Palin discounted as "insufficent evidence" when she sued the Bush administration to overturn its decision to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act (Source)

5: the number of colleges Palin attended over six years before graduating in 1987 from the University of Idaho with a major in journalism (Source)

500: the number of Fortune 500 companies Sarah Palin is not qualified to run, according to McCain adviser Carly Fiorina (Source)

50: the number of days after Palin announced she 'will fully cooperate' with an ethics investigation into the 'Troopergate' scandal that the McCain campaign announced she was 'unlikely to cooperate' because it had been 'hijacked' by Obama operatives. The probe was unanimously authorized by a bipartisan panel of eight Alaska Republicans and four Democrats. (Source)

28: the number of days prior to accepting the vice presidential offer that Palin said she couldn't entertain the idea 'until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day' (Source)

15: the number of minutes McCain and Palin spent together during their only meeting prior to the interview in which McCain offered her the vice presidential slot (Source)

See more Sarah Palin numbers of note here"

Eye to Eye

Jack Cafferty and I see Eye to Eye on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

Especially from 1:59 on. What do you think?

It breaks down as such, when reviewing Sarah's CBS interview with Katie Couric:
Jack Cafferty: "If John McCain wins this woman will be one 72-year-old's heartbeat away from being President of the United States. And if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, it should... I'm 65 and have been covering politics as you have (to Wolf Blitzer) for a long time- that is one of the most pathetic pieces of tape I have ever seen for someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in this country- that's all I have to say."
Wolf Blitzer: "Yeah but she's cramming a lot of information..."
Jack Cafferty: "There's no excuse for that- she's supposed to know a little bit of this- don't make excuses for her- that's pathetic."
Wolf Blitzer: "It was not her best answer, I'll agree with you on that, Jack."

Has Anyone Seen this Email?

I received the email below (thanks Nicole) a month ago that I thought was quite interesting. Apparently it has circulated a lot. Responses to the email were turned into a blog. You can go to this site and read countless accounts of American women who are saying "No to Palin".

Please read and discuss. Also, you can visit "Women Against Palin" here.

"Friends and compatriots,

We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce—on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate—that has a real possibility of becoming fact.

Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present and future daughters. To date, she is against a woman's right to choose, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she repeatedly brought up the question of banning books), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears.

We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably benefited from.

First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly.

Therefore, we invite you to submit with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our nation:

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5558/t/3691/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=466

We will post your responses on a blog called 'Women Against Sarah Palin,' which we intend to publicize as widely as possible. Please send us your reply at your earliest convenience-the greater the volume of responses we receive, the stronger our message will be.

Thank you for your time and action.

VIVA!

Sincerely,

Quinn L. and Lyra K.
New York, NY
womensaynopalin@gmail.com

**PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! If you send this to 20 women in the next hour, you could be blessed with a country that takes your concerns seriously. Stranger things have happened."

"I Cannot Wait for the VP Debate" Round III

Round I discussed why perhaps the McCain campaign doesn't want Sarah Palin speaking to the press.
Round II featured a blog focused on why the prospect of Sarah Palin possibly becoming the President of the United States should be a bit scary.

Round III is solely a video of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ

This is how it breaks down:
Katie asks Sarah "Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more examples of how McCain has lead the charge for more oversight?"
Sarah proceeds to give the example that Katie already mentioned above.
Katie points out that McCain, after 26 years in the Senate and also being the Chairman of the Powerful Commerce Committee, has almost always sided with less regulation and not more.
Sarah then proceeds to talk about how McCain is a Maverick: "He's also known as the Maverick though- taking shots from his own party and certainly taking shots from the other party- trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about- the need to reform government."
Katie smiles and says "I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point, specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?"
Sarah: "I'll try to find you some and I'll bring em to you."

I really appreciate the way Sarah always defaults to how John McCain is such a "Maverick" when asked difficult questions; yet, when she's asked to give specific examples as to what he's done to go against the Republican party to bring more regulation, she has none to offer.

Also- during the VP Debate, is Sarah going to say "I'll get back to you on that one" when she is presented with a difficult question by the panel?

I don't know about you, but I'm excited to find out!

"I Cannot Wait for the VP Debate" Round II

This article so clearly expresses my feelings regarding McCain's VP choice, that I wanted to post it on my own blog because I feel as if I couldn't say it better myself:

"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"

By: Wendy Doniger
Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago's Divinity School

"Belief in god, like getting pregnant, is a private matter between consenting adults (or one consenting adult and one or more deities) and is no one else's business. I am on record in this blog (and have not budged an inch) as not objecting to any candidate's religious views.

But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people. In both sex and religion (which combine in the debates about abortion), Sarah Palin's views make me fear that the Republican party has finally lost its mind.

As for sex, the hypocrisy of her outing her pregnant daughter in front of millions of people, hard on the heels of her concealing her own pregnancy (her faith in abstinence applying, apparently, only to non-Palins), is nicely balanced by her hypocrisy in gushing with loving support of her teenage daughter after using a line-item veto to cut funding for a transitional home for teenage mothers in Alaska.

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

And as for religion, I'd love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment (global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands, so it must be the work of You Know Who), the lives of untold thousands of soldiers and innocent bystanders (He is apparently rooting for this, too, she says), and, incidentally, a lot of polar bears and wolves, not to mention all the people who will be shot with the guns that she thinks other people ought to have. An even wider and more sinister will to impose her religious views on other people surfaced in her determination to legislate against abortion even in cases of rape and in her attempts to ban books, including books on evolution, and to fire the librarian who stood against her.

In dramatic contrast, Barack Obama was right to remark (of the teenage pregnancy) that you should back off from peoples' families, a remark directed ostensibly to press coverage but one that could also, I think, be thrown back at Palin herself: don't humiliate members of your family in order to get elected to public office. And he was right to remark (of the religious implications of abortion), 'I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.' Of course, it would be hard for Palin to follow this excellent policy, since it's evident that almost her only qualification in the minds of McCain & co.is her family. Moreover, it's hard to square Palin's attitudes to both family privacy and abortion with the shifting policies of McCain himself, who, in 2000, said that any question of his own daughter's pregnancy and/or abortion 'would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else,' and who, though describing himself as a 'pro-life' candidate, said he would not ban abortion in the case of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother, nor would he reverse Roe v. Wade.

Joe Biden's views are most relevant to the question at hand, since, as a Catholic, he shares much of Palin's embryological theology: he believes life begins at conception. But he has gone out of his way to insist that he would not impose his personal views on others, and has indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion. That is the right answer. It's in the Constitution. It's not in the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's in the mother-lovin' Constitution."

By: Wendy Doniger
Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago's Divinity School

Debate or not debate?

So McCain wants to delay the first debate.

This reminds me of when I'm really behind on a project, and I need to make up some excuse, really any excuse (the dog ate my project), as to why the deadline should be extended.

McCain calling for a debate to be delayed = he is not prepared to debate Obama

Think about it. As long as the economic "meltdown" story is in the headlines, the polls will see Obama rise, and McCain fall with a snowball effect. This will happen for a couple of reasons:

1) Americans already think that Obama is stronger on the economy. Therefore any additional news of an economic "crisis" will keep bolstering his cred.

2) McCain keeps showing us he is clueless on the economy (strong fundamentals, calling for the firing of the SEC chairman, calling the SEC the FEC, etc.)

So what can McCain do? He needs some distracting element to stop the snowball.

Here is an article discussing how this is purely a tactical decision. We'll see if it works.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=30698

Allow me to introduce myself...

Well, I’m sorry I’ve delayed in posting, but my crazy law student life got to me for a while. But now that we’re revving up for the election with the first debate coming up on Friday, I simply cannot put off posting any longer. Although my entry today won’t be substantive (trust me, it not like I don’t have material on the GOP), I just wanted to “introduce” myself and say that I’ll be pulling most of my material from the debates themselves. I want to be fair to both candidates and their running mates and editorialize on what they’ve said – not what the media says they’ve said.
In the meantime, I want to personally thank the Republican party and George W. Bush for the financial crisis we find ourselves in right now – especially as some of my friends and peers, incredibly qualified – struggle to secure employment in this FANTASTIC market. Looks like all those years of “No Child Left Behind” and “investing” in the future, coupled with fiscally “conservative” policies have created an atmosphere where America’s youth can shine. Again, kudos!!!

"I Cannot Wait for the VP Debate" Round I

This article (thanks IndyPen) made me laugh out loud today:

My favorite part is here:

"Neither Palin nor McCain spoke while cameras in the room for their meeting with Saakashvili. A McCain-Palin staffer yelled "No questions," but that didn't stop a reporter from the Associated Press, who asked Palin what she has learned from her meetings. Palin just smiled as the press corps was ushered out of the room.

Palin then met alone with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani where an interesting thing happened. According to a pool reporter, it appeared that Palin almost answered a reporter's question before catching herself. 30 seconds into the meeting, the press was asked to leave and a reporter asked Palin what her thoughts were about driving past Ground Zero, which she had passed on the way to the Ritz hotel to meet Talabani. According to the TV producer in the room, Palin looked as though she wanted to answer the question, paused briefly but then hesitated and then just nodded."

Of course they don't want Palin speaking to the press. We all know how that goes:
1. Sarah Palin answering questions at Town Hall
2. Sarah Palin interview with Charles Gibson
3. Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric

Or maybe it has something to do with this?
Sarah Palin Gets Protection from Witches

THE DEBATES

I am super excited about the debates. I hope you are too. Here are the dates so that you can watch the candidates in action:

Each debate starts at 9PM Eastern Time. Click Here for updates/changes to the schedule.

September 26, 2008: Presidential debate with foreign policy focus.
Site: University of Mississippi – Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security – Moderator: Jim Lehrer – Staging: Podium debate – Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment.

October 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Site: Washington University (St. Louis) – Moderator: Gwen Ifill – Staging/Answer Format: Debate will consist of both foreign and domestic policy questions asked by the moderator. Format will be similar to the presidential debates.

October 7, 2008: Presidential debate in a town hall format, Belmont University, Nashville, TN.
Site: Belmont University – Moderator: Tom Brokaw – Staging: Town Hall debate – Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator.

October 15, 2008: Presidential debate with domestic policy focus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.
Site: Hofstra University – Topic: Domestic and Economic Issues – Moderator: Bob Schieffer – Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table – Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate – Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.

**Each debate will begin at 9pm eastern, 6pm Pacific Time and last for 90 minutes. They will be aired on every major broadcast network such as CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. They will also be aired on cable outlets such as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and many others.

Note: The topics of the 1st and 3rd presidential debates were switched, the Sept. 26th debate will be foreign policy with the Oct. 15th debate being domestic policy. This is the latest information.

The POW Card

I know. I know what you're all going to say- You can't touch McCain in this aspect. Well, you're probably right. John McCain is a war hero. He is a man who endured over five years of torture from his captors and even when he had the chance to come home refused if his fellow captives couldn't return as well. This is extremely admirable. This shows good character. This deserves all Americans' respect. This is proof that McCain loves this country and was willing to serve for it.

However; is this reason enough that he should be the President of the United States? Is it proof enough that he can be?

I ask this question because I've actually heard, numerous times, from Republicans/McCain supporters that this is the reason they are going to vote for him. I watch the RNC and fail to hear anything important about the issues of the 2008 Election; my ears instead filling with countless war stories and statements honoring McCain’s service to the U.S. in Vietnam.

What about his policies and his stance on the aspects of government that are going to affect your daily life in the future? Sure, he sacrificed himself to serve his country 30 years ago, but is he going to sacrifice himself in 2008 to the criticism of the "old-boy's network" (which he’s a part of) in order to do the very important things for this country that need to be done?

Is McCain going to be able/does he want to fix the economy, end the war in Iraq, or set up a system that is going to help those who do really try to help themselves, yet cannot?
Is McCain going to work to protect middle-income Americans or is he going to continue Bush’s ways of lowering the taxes, which only benefits the rich?

There are thousands of people in this country who have fought to secure our freedom over the years. Let’s look at our soldiers serving in Iraq, for instance, who should not even be there. Let’s also take them and their welfare into mind come the 2008 election. Let’s elect a U.S. President this year who cares about all Americans, and not just some.

"Drill, baby, Drill"

A Great Article I wanted to Share:
(Thanks Isabella) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Watch the McCain Campaign's Energy Policy Here

Making America Stupid

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: September 13, 2008

"Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of 'drill, baby, drill!'

I’ll tell you what they would have been doing: the Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan observers would have been up out of their seats, exchanging high-fives and joining in the chant louder than anyone in the hall — 'Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!' — because an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.

Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. 'Typewriters, baby, typewriters.'

Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with 'drill, baby, drill' — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra 'invent, baby, invent?' That is what a party committed to 'change' would really be doing. As they say in Texas: 'If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.'

I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.

I respected McCain’s willingness to support the troop surge in Iraq, even if it was going to cost him the Republican nomination. Now the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party’s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency.

In order to disguise the fact that the core of his campaign is to continue the same Bush policies that have led 80 percent of the country to conclude we’re on the wrong track, McCain has decided to play the culture-war card. Obama may be a bit professorial, but at least he is trying to unite the country to face the real issues rather than divide us over cultural differences.

A Washington Post editorial on Thursday put it well: 'On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Senator John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Senator Barack Obama for using the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’ and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.'

Some McCain supporters criticize Obama for not having the steel in his belly to use force in the dangerous world we live in today. Well I know this: In order to use force, you have to have force. In order to exercise leverage, you have to have leverage.

I don’t know how much steel is in Obama’s belly, but I do know that the issues he is focusing on in this campaign — improving education and health care, dealing with the deficit and forging a real energy policy based on building a whole new energy infrastructure — are the only way we can put steel back into America’s spine. McCain, alas, has abandoned those issues for the culture-war strategy.

Who cares how much steel John McCain has in his gut when the steel that today holds up our bridges, railroads, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is rusting? McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin 'reform' Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?

Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.

There is no strong leader without a strong country. And posing as one, to use the current vernacular, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig."

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: September 13, 2008

Watch the McCain Campaign's Energy Policy Here

Just in case the media decided to gloss over this... granted, I don't know why they'd do such a thing

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/178233.html

Country First! (But first give me your vote)

John McCain has continuously defined himself as a "Maverick". Someone who is going to change this country for the better. This is proven through his relentless fight against corruption (even in the GOP) and his constant "marching to the beat of his own drum". Perhaps these aspects were true- eight years ago- but what of significance has he done since then?

To me it seems that lately McCain is willing to do and say anything to get our votes and this prospect puts some serious doubts in my mind regarding his concern for the bettering of our country. Instead, given his actions, I can't help but think his only and true concern is to be elected.

What I see and what those can see who look into his records is how much McCain has voted with George W. Bush each year since 2000. "According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001)".

We've all heard this. You're probably thinking- why is this being brought up, AGAIN? Well think about it, because it's important. Just take a glance at the uncanny similarities between ideals when comparing Bush's 2000 speech and McCain's 2008 speech.

OK, that was meant to be funny. And also to scare you a little.

A few questions for you:
-Can we afford to put a man into office who can claim with a straight face that the economy today (after 8 years of Bush's policies) is "fundamentally sound" as it crashes before our eyes? One day McPal (McCain + Palin) are interventionists, the next they’re non interventionists- but this is all depending on that day’s economic business requirements. Not good enough for me.
-Can we seriously surrender our hope for a progressive and effective political system to a man who has agreed and still does with Bush regarding Iraq, tax policy, the economy, and foreign and domestic policies?
-And finally, what is your approval rating of Bush? From what I understand the disapproval rating is somewhere in the 70 percentile (maybe higher?) country-wide so I'm going to just go ahead and take a chance that it's low.

So then why vote for McSame?

The part that gets me above everything else is McCain's blatantly obvious political pick for his VP. I'm not going to get into this too much here because I believe the topic of Sarah Palin, her beliefs, and “her on the issues” deserve a whole other post; however, for McCain to choose a running mate like Palin- who miraculously answers questions without actually answering them, dodging inquiries unrelated to Alaska or her family as if they were the plague, and in the end never fails to demonstrate how utterly clueless she is - again makes me question McCain's sincerity about wanting a better country for the American people.

I would certainly respect McCain's candidacy and his campaign much more, and I would (maybe) have some trust in his presidential agenda, if he had chosen a sidekick who knew what he/she was doing rather than creating what seems like a marketing ploy. Or perhaps someone with whom he's worked before would have been a more solid choice rather than calling someone up to be his VP whom he met with once before with the sole purpose of riling up the public into a McCain-electing frenzy. Congrats McPal, you're celebrities! But Brangelina or TomKat would sooner get my vote.