![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(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.
“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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.