oselle | (no subject)

Entry tags:

politics

(no subject)

Campbell Brown on CNN had this to say about the way the McCain campaign has been hiding Sarah Palin from the press:

“Bear with me for a short rant on another subject, because frankly I have had and I know a lot of other women out there are with me on this. I have had enough of the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. It has to end. She was here in New York City today meeting with world leaders at the UN. And what did the McCain campaign do? They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. And they did ban reporters from asking her any questions. Tonight, I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. This woman is from Alaska, for crying out loud. She is strong; she is tough; she is competent. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters just like Barack Obama did today. Just like John McCain did today. Just like Joe Biden has done on numerous occasions. Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one.”

Now, I suspect that Brown is just using a clever tactic here -- latching onto the sexism charge as a way to goad the McCain campaign into putting Palin out there (where she absolutely should be). At least I hope she is. Because no one can seriously believe that sexism is behind the campaign's dictatorial efforts to keep Palin away from the press. I think we all know why this is happening -- the campaign doesn't want the press asking Palin unscripted questions because they know she cannot answer them. Even in interviews that she's been prepped for, and even in her scheduled speeches she clearly has nothing of value to say. God forbid the press starts hurling actual questions at her. Now, our press is not exactly known for throwing hardballs at Republicans. But Palin is such a weak link that it's not going to take much to bring her down. Even a routine foreign policy question makes her stammer and stare like a tweenie who blew off her homework to go to the mall. The campaign isn't hiding Palin because she's a woman. They're hiding her because they're stalling for time. She's a sort of unlikable Eliza Doolittle and the campaign is playing the role of Henry Higgins -- trying to mold a fundie whackjob with no applicable experience into presidential material. Good luck with that, Professor Higgins.

In other news, did you know that as of October 1st, a U.S. Army brigade will be assigned the task of homeland defense -- on U.S. soil -- purportedly "to help with civil unrest and crowd control" (among other things) a move that reverses a more than 100-year-old ban on such military use within the United States? Did you also know that as of 2006, The Defense Authorization Act gave the President the right "to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist 'incident, if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of 'public order,' or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations..." Read more here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I want them to put Palin front and center so we can all see just how unprepared this woman is to be anywhere near the White House.

If they're trying to sell us Palin as a qualified candidate they need to prove it, and right now they're just stonewalling. I simply cannot believe that McCain is still polling as high as he is.

It's more like their whole nomination of Palin is sexist and the way they want to handle her in the press naturally stems from that!

At this point there's almost nothing that this administration could do in terms of grabbing power that would surprise me. It terrifies me, but it never surprises.

I don't think they're going to declare martial law with one army brigade but the mere fact that they're putting the systems in place to do just that is pretty fucking terrifying. And anyone who thinks that martial law in America would be enforced by the military alone, without the support of mercenaries like Blackwater, has got his head up his ass.

so much for staying away from the political, huh? It's all so ridiculous. Do you think we'd have any luck starting a campaign to get people to write-in Lewis Black for President?

Do you think if Castiel could get Dean out of hell to save the world he could get Franklin D. Roosevelt out of heaven to save America?

At this point I'd settle for either Roosevelt.

Let me put another side here -- did you know that when Palin was interviewed by Charles Gibson - she was asked foreign affair questions, economic questions. When Obama was interviewed he was asked about his family, his childhood -- NO foreign affairs questions, no grilling at all. Now which was is actually running for the Presidency?

She's been on Fox as well. So where is the hiding? I haven't seen Biden being grilled.

Let's see Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, and that was all the experience he had. Palin who ISN'T running for President is governor of Alaska. So why is she inexperienced? Obama has been a senator for 3 years - no mayorial or governor experience. Palins (VICE president) has been governor for over 2 years - with experience running a billion dollar budget.

Once again -- I don't like the name calling. I resent terribly when people suggest if I don't vote for Obama I'm a racist. And that's everywhere you look. If he loses it's because ALL Republicans are racist! that's insulting. I won't vote for him because I don't agree with his policies.

If Condaleeza Rice ran for President would you vote for her? Why not - she's a woman, she's black -- you must be a racist. Does it even make sense that arguement?? Wouldn't you be furious to be accused of something like that. It's wrong to vote for someone just because they are white OR black OR a woman. You must vote for the person that has the ideals you have - that has the policies you can agree with (or most policies you can agree with).

NEVER vote because a celebrity says you should or the media says you will be a racist if you don't. Vote because you are informed.

And I don't care who you vote for -- just do it for the right reason. And don't go down to the levels of the people who accuse Palin of not having good prenatal care and that's why her child has Down's Syndrome! (yes I read that on a noted media journalist's blog!) Once again that's just cruel and insulting.

Be educated and be passionate, but don't be mean.

Nice try. Obama spent over 18 months answering all KINDS of economic and foreign policy questions as he battled -- and defeated -- Clinton, Biden, and all the rest in the primaries.

And he has been on the campaign trail nearly every day getting grilled by citizens and reporters alike.

They finally asked him about his younger days because it was a gap in the national knowledge, NOT because they were babying him with softballs.

Now it's Palin's turn to answer the tough questions. They haven't had time to ask her about her childhood yet, because the campaign keeps whisking her off and locking out the press. Yes, they are hiding her. Fox News my ass. That's you'r softball territory. Sarah couldn't even survive mild questions from Katie Couric. Put Palin in front of Keith Olberman, and i might be impressed. Palin's childhood? I can read about that in the National Enquirer.

And I'm TIRED of the "experience" argument. This has very little to do with executive experience. It's about intelligence and diplomacy and public relations talent, which is summed up in the phrase "looking Presidential." Clinton, for all his lack of experience, is still loved overseas and by half the US. Obama went overseas to Iraq Afghanistan Kuwait Jordan Israel Germany France and Britain and looked more Presidential than GWB ever did and Palin ever will.

You know who has the most "experience" of the lot? Dick Cheney. Yes, please, vote for Mr. 17%.

I thought we might have a good discussion here - but you are really dead set against this person. You do remember she's just the Vice Presidential candidate. McCain is running against Obama - not Palin.

Do you admit the news media was very biased toward Obama in their coverage of him? That's been proven by many.

See Public Relations won't keep us safe. I give you diplomacy and I give you Obama is viewed very highly overseas. But they don't govern me -- they have their own messes. So I don't care if they adore him -- if his policies will hurt me at home - my financial security, my personal security -- then I'm not for him.

Right now- I'm more concerned with the economy and healthcare and my own personal security. Iran and Venezuela hate us -- and no I don't care that it's Bush's fault - it is - but he's past news. They are powerful and they pose a threat. Can Obama handle that threat? Diplomacy may not work. Anyone who thinks the Holocaust was a fake is not too stable mentally and may not be able to be talked to. I hope, but it's doubtful.

We are completely different. We are different ages -- we probably have had some different life experiences. So our views on things are WAY different.

Once again - You won't change my mind and I can tell I won't change yours. What I Ask -- is to PLEASE be informed - NOT by the media -- judge for yourself. Not on the superficial things - not by the rhetoric BOTH candidate are saying. They are wanting your vote and will Say ANYTHING to get it.

YOU look into things -- ask these questions: Who is going to pay for these changes? What are the changes? Who pays most of the taxes in this country? Who doesn't pay any taxes?
How will my healthcare be changed? Will there be any delays in getting procedures done because of costs?
Big business can be corrupt - I totally agree - but at the same time big business HIRES people, their stocks are people's retirement plans. Wouldn't reducing corporate tax be good? We are losing companies left and right overseas. Ireland reduced their taxes on companies to 12% and now are having a Boom in their economy. Companies are flocking there. We are 30%!! How can we compete? We need jobs and that means we need companies - big and small. WE need the rich to start businesses, to hire. We need to be self sufficient - to be entrepreneurs.

Is it right to get rid of the secret ballot in unions? Why is it when Mexico wanted to get rid of the secret ballot when deciding if a union would enter -- 12 senators wrote a letter saying it was wrong. But now 1/2 of those senators and one candidate want it for us!

Know the issues -- be educated please! Then decide - and whatever you decide is fine. I don't want us all to agree -- but don't accuse me of anything if I don't agree with you.

but he's past news

Sorry, but no. He is very much present news as he represents the policies of the Republican party which McCain and Palin are part of. The Republicans and the McCain campaign are trying very hard to make us believe that the past eight years haven't happened, or at least that McCain represents some sort of "new breed" of Republican. He does not. He has voted with Bush 90% of the time. His "maverick" label has long since expired. If elected, he would continue the policies of Bush and the Republican party that have brought us to this nadir of economy, foreign policy and personal and national security. A vote for McCain is a vote for the Republicans, plain and simple. If you like what's been going on for the past eight years, then you go right ahead and vote for McCain.

Palin was added to the ticket to attract the fundamentalist, Christianist wing of the Republican base that was not entirely in McCain's corner. She was selected to "unify" the base with no regard for whether or not she's actually qualified. You complain because she was asked foreign policy questions? Good lord -- why SHOULDN'T she be asked foreign policy questions. McCain is 72 years old. He is not in the best of health. To say that McCain's the one running for president and Palin's qualifications are irrelevant is preposterous. She stands a very good chance of being president. The McCain campaign is doing everything they can to keep her from the press. Why is that? Because they know she's unqualified for this position and every time she opens her mouth she proves it.

Obama has to answer questions about his life and family because this media that you think is so biased in his favor has made an issue out of those things -- his supposedly "Muslim" upbringing, his pastor, his...bowling score. We don't need to hear about Palin's life because the McCain's campaign has made her small-town spunk the highlight of her qualfication for this job. We know all about her "hockey mom" and her "first dude" fairytale. Now it's time for her to answer some real questions and she clearly can't do it.

You don't like people being "mean?" Did you sit through the Republican convention? A flock of Republican luminaries from Giuliani to Palin herself sneering at Obama for being a community organizer? Joking about him like a bunch of rotten junior high kids? That's not "mean?" It's not only mean it's deeply harmful to the nation. It reduces this election to some sort of juvenile spitting contest. Who can get off the best shots.

I know the issues. I know that McCain's economic plan will benefit the wealthiest tier of people in this country -- a tier that I and some 80% of Americans are not in. I know that McCain has supported the further privatization of healthcare -- just as he supported the freewheeling deregulation of the markets and the banking industry that has led to this economic crisis. I know that his Vice-President is such a staunch fundamentalist that she made rape victims in Wasilla pay for their own rape kits because they contained emergency contraception -- and this is the mindset she would bring to the White House. No thank you.

Can Obama handle a threat? Can McCain? His self-stated solution to the civil war in Iraq was to sit the Sunnis and Shias down and tell them to "cut the bullshit." Real insightful foreign policy there. How would Palin handle a threat? Her whole insight into foreign relations seems to consist of being able to see Russia from an island off the coast of Alaska and she doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is -- and that's been the prime foreign policy directive of the past eight years.

We need the rich to start businesses? Whoa. Big business and the millionaires/billionaires in America have been lining their pockets for eight years off the Republican's catering to them and where are all the businesses they were supposed to start? The "trickle down" theory has been a myth for years. Guess you hadn't heard.

I don't know where you're getting your info from but you sound woefully uninformed. You want to have a debate about this stuff you're going to have to bring more to the table than this fictitious notion that the media adores Obama and your hurt feelings.

The voting 90% is where I want you to actually investigate that claim. most Senate votes are unanimous.
Go to the Congressional records and this is what you will find.
If you look at his actual record of voting on bills that affect policy -- he has voted with the party (Bush does not vote on legislation - so you aren't voting with or for Bush - but for the party) less than 50% of the time. Obama can say he hasn't voted "with Bush" because many times he did not vote at all -- he voted "present" which means he is not taking a stand either way. This is why I'm asking you to be informed and not just take these statistics as fact!

Here is another fact
"Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) said Monday that the media's pro-Obama (or anti-Clinton) bias explains in part why Barack Obama is portrayed as running away with the Democratic presidential nomination (instead of being locked in a close fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton)...."

"Voters, unlike political insiders, tend to have little interest in these sorts of process arguments. But there does seem to be an emerging sense that the media's perceived laudatory coverage of Obama has seeped into the general consciousness of the country .... (The Fix)

I first noticed a hint of bias right after the Iowa Caucus, when MSNBC hyped the notion that Barack Obama was "the change candidate"-- despite the fact that all Democratic candidates were pushing for major change: Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel.... TPM also noticed it.

The pimp comment aimed at Chelsea Clinton (made by MSNBC's David Shuster) created a stronger appearance of bias. And I'm not sure what to make of Chris Matthews' statement that watching an Obama speech made a "thrill" go up Matthews' leg.

In early February, ABC's Jake Tapper outright twisted a statement by Bill Clinton and leapt to defend Obama against an unmade "attack."

AS for the Fannie Mae crisis -- once again you do NOT have the facts. Again - -congressional records:
2006 - McCain speaks on the floor.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation

This bill was not passed by either Democrats and Republicans.

That is a known fact that can't be disbuted -- 2 years ago McCain warned that Fannie Mae was getting too big - would be a risk!

Can you at least acknowledge that fact?
You accuse me of not being informed - but I am giving you facts, articles, congressional records -- what do you have other than rhetoric--- show me YOUR FACTS.

Why did MSNBC fire Obberman and Mathews??? Because of their own air bias! Another fact.

Come on -- You can be an Obama fan and vote for him -- great -- but don't you DARE accuse me of being uninformed -- I am doing my best to cut through all the crap that's out there. I don't agree totally with McCain - he was not my first choice at all. And if someone else showed up -- I might vote for that person. But I have to chose between 2 candidates and I made my choice.

Also -- 2 covers of US weekly -- Obama and Michelle -- "why I love my wife" or some such
Sarah Palin and her baby -- "Babies, Lies and Scandals" (the editor of this magazine is a big Obama supporter by the way).

I give you the golden parachute is very bad -- but it's not up to the gov't to dictate CEO's salaries - it's up to the stockholders. You want the gov't to tell you you make too much?? Truly =- would you?

Obama has many socialist views I disagree with. He was into socialism in his college years -- yes that was in his own autobiography. I think he still maintains his belief in that. I don't.

I don't want the govt to control me anymore than they do. Do you?? Serious question here.

Here's where McCain was against Bush policy:
McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.
McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Did you know Biden said he would be proud to be on a ticket with McCain
Did you know the Republicans were very angry with McCain because he was "siding" with the Democrats too often? McCain was also contemplating or was wooed to become a Democrat?

Again people - I don't care who you vote for -- but you aren't giving me facts - or why you like Obama.

If you are voting for Obama because you don't like McCain -- great -- I'm fine with it. If Obama has policies you agree with - Good.
If you hate Bush and want to get back at him -- WRONG reason
If you don't like Republicans and are a staunch Democrat and agree with their policies and vote the party line -- Fine.

But if you like "change" and love the way Obama speaks (and he's a great speaker)- but don't know how he's going to make these changes or what it means to you - then get educated first.

Almost all the bias in favor of Obama you've pointed out happened during the primaries, and no wonder -- the press hated Hillary Clinton with a venomous passion. Pretty much all the "mavericky" stuff that you point out about McCain is ancient history and he's since flip-flopped on many of those stances. He now supports the Bush tax cuts. He calls himself fundamentally "a deregulator." He spinelessly caved in to pressure from the religious right when he chose his Vice-Presidential candidate. Maverick?

Why did MSNBC fire Obberman and Mathews??? Because of their own air bias! Another fact.

Yes, that is a fact and it should tell you just who controls the media in this country. Not liberals. The "liberal media" is a myth. Olbermann and Matthews were fired because of pressure from the right, just like Phil Donahue's show was canceled in 2001 despite its high ratings -- because he was challenging conservative views. If you were a real American patriot you'd be horrified that corporations and one political faction had such dominance over our "free press."

You claim you're "cutting through all the crap" and you somehow come down on the side of McCain who's been spewing nothing but crap since he clinched the nomination. I heard so much of the same "I'm a well informed voter!" business from Bush supporters in 2004 even though all the warning signs about him were already well in place -- they were cherry-picking their "information" just like you are. You're embarrassing yourself and boring me and I have better things to do. Go vote for your maverick and barracuda.

I read over my whole post, and all the posts I've made on this subject and I can't find ANY reference I've made to supporting Obama because a celebrity told me to or because the "liberal media" will say I'm a racist if I don't. These are fantastical conservative notions that you are parroting, more magical thinking. Where are you getting them from? Fox News? Newsmax magazine? Are those the sources of your supposedly well-informed research? Heaven help us.

Sorry to fire up on your blog Oselle, but I couldn't resist. The Press has loved McCain for years, and there are youtubes of press members admitting it openly.

Foreign countries don't govern us? I would argue that we've been governed by Saudi Arabia, China, and BinLadinistan (or whatever) for years.

And last I checked, if you give tax breaks to corporations, they offshore to China and pocket the rest. And if you turn your back for a minute, they run up the credit card and then come back begging, as we found out this week.

I agree with your suspicion that she's parroting some made-up points from somewhere. Fake Holocaust? Mexican unions? I haven't heard ANYthing about this in the campaigns. There must be some viral email out there that cobbles together the bullet points from every anti-Democratic group out there.

That's something I've noticed about the Republicans. They almost never come up with something specific about a specific candidate. It's always "The candidtate is a Liberal, and ALL Liberals kill babies/take away guns/socialize medicine/hire illegals for everything/hand out welfare/drive a car off a cliff in Massachusetts." The only specific thing they seem to have come up with about Obama is either hate speech (black) or an outright lie (Muslim).

I don't know why we bother. Everything that's happened here has been a perfect illustration of the conservative magical thinking I talked about in an earlier post, including the usual fictions about "liberal media," "big government," "socialism!" and I don't know what all (and I'm as mystified as you by the whole Mexican Unions thing) -- all topped off by the exact same "I am so too informed!" and "Don't be mean!" whining that I heard back in 2004. The only thing that's different this time around is that we're supposed to take magical thinking to such a level that we actually forget the past eight years ever happened! Bush is irrelevant! He's yesterday's news! Stop playing the blame game and look to the future! OMG. It's just...the mind freaking boggles.

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic: "White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win."
Jack Cafferty of CNN: "The polls remain close. Doesn't make sense ... unless it's race."
Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: "The reason Obama isn't ahead right now is ... the color of his skin. ... If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth."
Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: "Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice."
Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: "Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children's futures because he's black?"
Similar comments have been made by Kansas's Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in Time magazine. And according to The Associated Press: "A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race."

Gov. David Paterson sees the repeated use of the words "community organizer" as Republican code for "black".

Why are you accusing me of not being informed -- I am not parroting

Whether you yourself are racist or not, race is definitely a factor in this election and there are definitely conservatives who are willing to exploit it. At the recent "Values Voters" conference, they were selling boxes of waffles with Obama dressed up as a sort of Muslim Aunt Jemimah. Hilarious! Just a couple of weeks ago, Georgia Republican Lynn Westmoreland said that Obama and his wife were "uppity" a word that has traditionally been used as a slur against black people who "get above themselves." I'm sure that was just an inconvenient choice of words, right?

The Republicans have been using the "Southern Strategy" for years with great success. You're not a racist? Good for you. Unfortunately, the Republican party and conservatives have long relied upon racial divisions and dogwhistle words like "uppity" to appeal to like-minded white voters. Racism is real. Republican racism is very real. Whether you yourself are racist or not is irrelevant.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only