« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »

September 30, 2008

Palin's "foreign policy" claim debunked by military

Campaign tries to explain Palin's Putin comment

"When you consider even national security issues with Russia, as (Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where — where do they go? It's Alaska," the Republican vice presidential nominee said in an interview last week with CBS News' Katie Couric.

Here's the deal.

Under international law American sovereignty extends 200 miles out to sea from the coast of Alaska (and every other state bordered by the ocean). Most (but not all) nations with maritime sovereignty rights extend an air security corridor an additional 12 miles out from there.

That's 212 miles from the coast of Alaska.

However, no Russian military planes have been flying even into that zone, said Maj. Allen Herritage, a spokesman for the Alaska region of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

"To be very clear, there has not been any incursion in U.S. airspace in recent years," Herritage said.

Oh undoubtedly Russian aircraft are noted and checked out when they start to get close to the 212 mile wide zone, just as our own aircraft are undoubtedly noted and checked out before they actually enter Russian airspace. But flying over international waters - with or without being checked out by the USAF - in no way constitutes entering "into the airspace of the United States of America" as Palin claims. Her claim is totally without logical, legal, rational or factual merit. In short - it's bull shit!

Now, think about her claim for another minute here. If she's got foreign policy creds because Russian planes occasionally fly within 213 MILES of her just think how much more qualified a destitute alcoholic huddled over a grate a few blocks from the United Nations building in New York must be!

Ludicrous? Palin's "foreign policy advisor" apparently wouldn't think so.

"The point she was making is that the geographical location of Alaska has unique attributes. This doesn't happen to many states in the union," Biegun said. "Her point was that she's pretty up close to some of the big issues of international affairs."

Seems to me that Monical Lewinsky's got at least as good of "foreign policy" creds as Sarah Palin, perhaps even better. Lewinsky played human humidor (a pretty damn unique attribute, wouldn't you say?) for the single most powerful foreign policy authority on the planet. And she didn't do it from 213 MILES away either!

Posted by Kevin at 09:33 PM |

Rep. Miller (R-MI): voodoo accounting will fix Wall Street

Michigan Rep. Miller demands that certain accounting practices be curtailed

“There are common sense solutions to this problem that will have far less impact on the American taxpayer,” she said.

One of those, she said, is the elimination or suspension of so-called mark-to-market accounting practices in relation to mortgage-backed securities. Mark-to-market accounting rules require assets to be valued at their current market value on a company’s books – and many believe mortgage-backed securities’ values have actually fallen below their inherent worth.

Translated into homeowner's terms: You have a problem. You need to sell your home but it's not worth as much as you want to sell it for and the official accounting book proves it. Hey, no problem! Just toss the accounting book, claim that it's worth as much as you think you can pawn it off as being worth and let the unsuspecting fool who buys it worry about it's actual value.

I fail to see how turning Wall Street into a used car lot... where nothing is worth what the lying salesman claims it's worth... would be a good thing.

Posted by Kevin at 02:22 PM |

RNC sent out anti-bailout ad before Congressional vote

RNC ad, was cut, sent out before package failed

The timing on this TV ad begs a couple of important questions.

1. Did the RNC know that key House GOPers would vote against the bailout, thus ensuring it's failure, BEFORE Speaker Pelosi made her much-criticized (by Republicans) speech on the House floor?

2. Is the RNC deliberately undercutting McCain?

Posted by Kevin at 12:23 PM |

Deregulation Russian Roulette

Peter L. Bernstein, a financial consultant, economic historian and the editor of the Economics & Portfolio Strategy newsletter posed a significant question in Saturday's NYT: What’s Free About Free Enterprise?:

A huge bailout plan is being hammered out in Washington precisely to avert this kind of economic calamity. The plan is needed, and it needs to be put in place quickly. But at the same time, we need to ask how the financial system came to require a rescue of this magnitude.

I don't see how any rational person could look at this mess and not see the grimy fingerprints of deregulation as well as lax enforcement (and the naked greed which fuels both) all over this present crisis.

Naturally, a plan of this magnitude has stirred a storm of commentary, but two important potential results deserve more attention than they have received.

The first is the risk of moral hazard within the bailout itself. That is, if government is going to make good so many losses throughout the system, why would anyone set limits on future risk-taking? The situation could turn into a free-for-all that makes the recent disregard of risk look like child’s play.

The second problem is more philosophical, involving what the bailout plan reveals about the functioning of the free enterprise system. This raises disturbing questions. Although I agree with President Bush’s observation that "the risk of not acting would be far higher," we should be aware of the secondary effects of what we are getting into.

Bernstein focuses more on the moral hazard because, of the twin potential results this crisis presents, it's the one that he can best quantify.

Once the federal government declares, "Thou shalt not fail," there are no limits to how far future risk-takers will go. Who will see any need to pay attention to the possible consequences for the government’s budget, the market for its bonds, the taxpayers, its creditors and, indeed, the whole economic structure?

Bernstein echoes the sentiment expressed by the Hartford Courant's Rick Green the day before when he toured the seized 7,328-square-foot, mid-century mansion of Wall Street "uber-swindler" Michael Lauer during the fed's open house in preparation for a tax forclosure auction.

So on the rotting, moldy deck, next to the crumbling outdoor bar, I struck up a conversation with a neighbor, a man also curious about greed.

"No names!" said the chatty physician who lives next door. "It's guilt by association."

"I don't like these excesses, the money to be made at any price. It reminds me of the '80s," he offered. "When they do something like this, what are they thinking? Deceiving people is not right."

And, I wondered, are we somehow rewarding this greed when we fork over $700 billion to bail out the reckless, risky behavior of Wall Street?

Isn't that the open question on the minds of the huge majority of my fellow Americans right now?

Bernstein concludes with a vitally important question:

As we move into the future, and as the crisis finally passes into history, how will we deal with this earth-shaking blow to the most basic principle of our economic system? I do not know how to answer that question. But we need to ask it.

My answer would be that we do what this great country has always done and keep or invent what works and toss what doesn't work.

I see no reason why unfettered free market economics ought to be any more sacrosanct than human slavery, forced child labor or the legal status of women as mere chattel, to do with as men saw fit, used to be.

If Ivan Boesky and Sam Waksal, Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlawsky, Andrew Fastow and Jeff Skilling, Michael Lauer and the Rigas boys have taught us nothing else, they've taught us that greed is not good. The legal distinction between securities fraud and allowed arbitrage of the type which precipitated this current crisis is moot in the real world economy where it's always the little guy who gets stuck paying the bill when greed outstrips common sense. After all, insider trading and other assorted forms of securities fraud weren't always illegal. And even when they were the feds often studiously looked the other way, as Ivan "greed is good" Boesky knew only too well.

Former Securities and Exchange Commissioner Harvey J. Goldschmid, now a law professor at Columbia University puts it succinctly,

"We've got to have the most dramatic rethinking of our regulatory structure since the New Deal".

As James J. Cramer noted almost exactly five years ago in New York magazine,

Somewhere, though, in some high school or middle school, another generation is oblivious to the scandals and the crimes. A decade and a half from now, I suspect, we’ll be due for a new tsunami of crime, as these prosecutions fade in memory or fail to get embossed into the brains of those too young to pay attention.

That's exactly what will happen if we fail to learn the lessons of the last 20 years.

It's time to stop playing the insane Republican game of Russian "deregulation" Roulette. As the old lay definition says, trying the same thing over and over expecting different results is insane.

Posted by Kevin at 08:59 AM |

September 29, 2008

Tax 'em!

Pastors' political endorsements draw complaints

Posted by Kevin at 03:43 PM |

Invasion of the progressive snatchers

Mosquito Blog had a post up Sunday that for a while was the second most read post on the Lefty Blogs aggregator. The main thrust of it was about how McCain was holed up in his Virginia apartment using his phone to inject himself into the financial crisis rather than actually meeting with any of the players. But buried down in the second half of the post is a timely and sorely needed rant against the corporatists manning both sides of the aisle in Congress.

Unfortunately, it appears that we only have one big party in D.C. A Corporatist Party that has two subbranches--Democrats and Republicans--who put corporations and their needs above all else. This is the reason the Democrats are frantically giving up everything (repealing the bankruptcy bill, no relief for homeowners) and not looking at any options (letting the corporations and the wealthy elite taxpayer foot the bill. The end result is that Bush's policies and goals will continue for a decade or more....

Fortunately for Oregonians, Senate candidate Jeff Merkley (D-OR) took a strong, unapologetic stand against such corporatist instincts.

As an aside, can you imagine how screwed we'd all be if Senators Gordon Smith, John McCain and their Republicans pals had succeeded in turning Social Security over to Wall Street?

The New York Times describes how this proposed bailout would grant vast new power to the Treasury Secretary. CFO magazine has an article out this morning explaining that, despite the much-hyped meddling by John McCain and House Republicans, the proposal on the table this morning is Same Bailout, New Dynamic.

It seems that our Corporatist leaders just don't get it.

So where do we voters go from here? I don't have any good answers other than to elect non-corporatists like Jeff Merkley and pray they can restore a measure of fiscal sanity to our government.

Posted by Kevin at 08:57 AM |

September 28, 2008

Olmert rediscovers his cajones, laments radical, violent underbelly of Israeli society

I've often thought that politicians are most honest when they are leaving politics and no longer have a reason to worry about the repercussions of speaking truth to power.
Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert publically lamented the "evil wind of extremism" blowing through Israeli society. In truth, Israeli society has long turned a blind eye to radical religious extremists in their midst.

Destroying Palestinian crops... burning down Palestinian homes... sabotaging IDF vehicles, all are accepted practices among Israeli radical settlers. Whether the approval is overt or covert doesn't really matter because the end result is the same.

Marginally less radical elements within the illegal settler community claim that they only do these things in response to Palestinian provocations. But that explanation defies both Israeli history and common sense.

Yitzhar has long been considered a hotbed of militancy, an image the settlement's spokesman, Yigal Amitay, accepts with pride. "Yitzhar will always prefer to be in the position of the aggressor and not in the position of the victim," said the 42-year-old father of 10, sitting in his garden along a quiet street lined with small cottages.

Religious zealots practice a demented form of situational ethics which excuses the inexcusable as long as it's done for what are deemed legitimate reasons. Of course, Al Queda practices a virtually identical form of ethics, as have the radical "Christians" in America who joyfully firebombed medical clinics and murdered doctors who they disagreed with.

Indeed, it was one such American radical who introduced the world to the oft-copied concept of a truck bomb, killing hundreds of innocent civilians in the process, many of whom were small children. Although in fairness McVeigh simply expanded on a concept refined in another religion-fueled conflict in 16th Century Europe.

We know that there are equally radical and equally violent extremists among the Palestinians too. To deny that there are would be to deny reality. But I would think that a people who suffered so horribly at the hands of whack-job Nazi in Europe would have figured it out by now that oppression reaps resistance and violence begets violence.

Posted by Kevin at 07:03 PM |

September 26, 2008

Conservative columnist: Palin's "out of her league"

Kathleen Parker on Palin:

When Palin first emerged as John McCain's running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood -- a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn't make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

You know it's obvious when even a conservative feminist can't avoid it. And she's right too. This last interview with Couric in particular makes it painfully obvious that Sarah Palin is woefully ignorant for someone who would be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the single most powerful and influential job on the planet.

Kathleen Parker continues,

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman -- and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket -- we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

Of course we would be guffawing. And really, by treating Palin with kid gloves aren't we effectively saying that because she's a woman that she just can't handle the whole truth in all of it's sometimes painful fullness?

Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

My initial reaction is surprise that Parker would be so bluntly honest and forthright. But upon reflection it seems to me that Parker is simply being politically pragmatic. Palin is a boat anchor around the GOP's presidential aspirations. If she bails now then it only reflects badly on McCain. If she glibly carries on then it'll take the GOP years to live down the reputation of having crassly offered an ignorant candidate to the American people simply because they believed us foolhardy enough to think that breasts and a uterus are sufficient qualifications to be President.

Posted by Kevin at 01:14 PM |

How would you fare under Obama/McCain tax plans?

You can find out using a handy dandy program developed by a business software company and an accounting professor in Maine.

It will show you what your estimated taxes would be for the next four years (2009 through 2012) under the current system as well as under McCain's and Obama's tax schemes.

I decided to take it for a spin and see how the respective plans would affect a single working parent (one child) earning $40k per year with no deductions and who was born in the mid-60s.

The first year under McCain the taxes would go up $15 then go down $45 and then down $722 and $797 in 2011 and 2012 respectively.

The first year under Obama the taxes would go down $502, the next year would also be down $502 and the last two years would be down $1,119 and $1,134 respectively.

Now, I know that it's not a realistic scenario but just for giggles I plugged in the same data (no deductions!) but with the single parent earning $6 million per year. Voila! That person would do remarkably better under McCain's tax scheme. I mean a LOT better.

Posted by Kevin at 08:00 AM |

September 25, 2008

Poll: Obama & Merkley on top in Oregon

Done for KATU and Roll Call Newspaper, SurveyUSA has all the juicy crosstabs.

Noteworthy in the crosstabs is whom the Independents (NAVs) are going for. There Obama leads McCain 51% to 37% and Merkley leads Smith 45% to 36%.

Favorables are also very interesting. Broken down as favorable/unfavorable/neutral, McCain's numbers appear to be 39/39/19 and Obama's are 51/34/11. In the Senate race Smith's are 31/42/22 and Merkley's are 30/35/25. Notice the very high favorables for Obama and the disproportionately high unfavorables for Smith.

Another very interesting stat which surprised me a bit is that Merkley is leading Smith among men 47% to Smith's 40%. Among Women Smith has a one point lead 43% to 42%. But it is among women where I expect Merkley to make the biggest gains between now and election day.

Overall the numbers look very bad for Gordon Smith and John McCain.

Posted by Kevin at 08:19 AM |

September 24, 2008

Conn. Dems ponder kicking Lieberman out of Party

That according to the newspaper of record in Connecticut.

While I have no difficulty empathizing with Conn. Dems anger at Lieberman for having addressed the GOP convention, which is what broke this particular Dem camel's back, I'm not sure that I agree with kicking him out of the party.

Seems to me that a person ought to be able to decide for themself whether to join and remain joined with a political party as well as when or if to leave that political party.

To their credit, the Republicans didn't kick Senator Jeffords out of the GOP even though he clearly had very serious fundamental disagreements with the party and particularly with the GOP leadership in Washington.

Jeffords left of his own accord and I personally think that Lieberman ought to be allowed to likewise choose for himself whether to remain a registered Dem or not.

What's interesting in comparing Jeffords and Lieberman is that whereas Jeffords had stark differences with the GOP on social policy, Lieberman's social views are actually pretty much inline with the Democratic Party as a whole. Certainly Lieberman is socially well to the left of Zell Miller, who addressed the 2004 GOP convention. It's primarily on foreign policy where Lieberman and the Dems part ways. But in so doing he is actually following in the footsteps of another very hawkish Democrat Senator - Scoop Jackson.

Neither Jackson nor Miller were kicked out of the Democratic Party. Here in Oregon, Kevin Mannix wasn't kicked out of the Democratic Party either. Each was allowed to decide for themself whether to stay or go.

What do you think?

Posted by Kevin at 03:41 PM |

September 23, 2008

In Case You Missed These

I'm sick today and working, too, so I have no time or energy to really write about these stories, but I feel they are so important that I am going to link to them and hope you will read them.

1. The Bush Administration is keeping secret a "grim" report on Afghanistan until after the election, presumably to help John McCain get elected.

2. The big bail-out legislation that Congress is being heavily pressured to pass in order to save our financial system contains a 32-word clause that should have people marching in the streets.

3. Surprise, surprise! (NOT) Taxpayers are "mad as hell" about the $700 billion bailout of irresponsible bankers, etc. But when will we see people marching in the streets?

Meanwhile, Fox News, who wouldn't think of informing its readers of anything important, is highlighting a shocking news story today: magician/stunt man David Blaine is a "CHEATER" because he's taking breaks from hanging upside down in his latest meaningless publicity stunt. Oh, the humanity!

Posted by Becky at 03:35 PM |

McCain the surrenderer

First McCain demanded that the President surrender in Somalia:

Then he demanded that the President surrender in Haiti:





The text of both (and more) can be found here

Posted by Kevin at 08:29 AM |

September 22, 2008

I remain a confirmed skeptic

Top Ten Clues in the "Who is Trig's Mother" Mystery

Apparently, I'm not the only one. Note how Andrew Sullivan had to ask Alaska Governor John McCain to release the info since he's clearly the one in charge of Alaska now...

Posted by Kevin at 02:41 PM |

Alaskans, meet your new Governor: John McCain

It seems that Sarah Palin is no longer in control of the Alaska state government.

ANCHORAGE -- Jerry McCutcheon went to Sarah Palin's office here last week to request information about the firing of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, the scandal that for weeks has threatened to overshadow the governor's role as Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate.

McCutcheon was given a phone number in Virginia to call: the national headquarters of the McCain-Palin campaign.

...

A recent call to John Cramer, the head of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs -- who clashed with Palin during her years as mayor of Wasilla -- was returned by a McCain campaign operative who had just arrived from Washington, D.C. "John who?" she asked.

Nothin' says "ready to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the Presidency" like abdicating the state government to McCain staffers 4,300 miles away in Virginia or campaign operatives who don't even know who they are ansering the phones FOR.

If, God forbid, McCain were to die, who would be running our government? Clearly not Sarah Palin, although she'd get the title...

I can see it now. Russian PM Putin puts in a call via the infamous red phone during a brewing crisis. Staffer picks up the phone, "Sarah who?"

(hat tip: Jack Bog)

Posted by Kevin at 12:16 PM |

McCains for Obama

McCains for Obama:

Sure, old Mac’s got a fantastic last name. True, he’s acknowledged that global warming exists and torture is mean. And yes, he can take six men to the ground using only a shoe horn and length of dental tape. But as much as we’d love to share a surname with the most powerful man in the World, these things hardly qualify John McCain to pull this country out of our eight-year catastrophest and into a brighter, healthier, more peaceful tomorrow.

So unite, McCains of the world! Because while we clearly have the superior last name, Obama’s no doubt the man for the job.

Posted by Kevin at 08:16 AM |

September 21, 2008

Mormons underwriting California Anti-Gay ballot measure

Gay Rights Watch reported a recent poll showing that California's anti-gay marriage amendment appears to be headed for a sound defeat.

I have previously posted about how Prop 8 chief Ron Prentice is lining his own pockets with donation money. But what's really interesting about all of this is the humongous Mormon connection with Prop 8.

The blog Mormons for Prop 8 reported that as of this past Thursday,

Currently 31% of the total amount of donations over $1000 to protectmarriage.com has come from Mormon donors. That’s a pretty impressive number, given that only about 2% of the state's population is Mormon. However, we believe that the actual percentage is much higher.

In fact, they estimate that when it's all said and done that approximately 80% of Prop 8's funding will have come from Mormons, who make up only about 2% of the state's population.

This is all fraught with profound irony given how heavily persecuted the early Mormons were for having unorthodox beliefs. But what's not entirely clear to me is WHY the Mormons are so heavily underwriting Prop 8. Is it because they have such a big problem with unorthodox beliefs being accepted by society at large? Or is this more an attempt to buy their way into the good graces of American Fundi-Cons?

Posted by Kevin at 10:53 AM |

September 19, 2008

Even Bill Sizemore Gets Justice in Court

Bill Sizemore has won a lawsuit challenging Secretary of State Bill Bradbury's decision to bar two of his submitted statements from the Voter Pamphlet. The two statements were rejected by Bradbury because they failed to even mention the ballot measures they were filed to support. Instead, they consisted of Sizemore's defense of his character.

I actually think Marion County Judge Thomas Hart made the right decision. From the outset I was concerned about the free speech implications, but beyond that the fact is that the opponents of Sizemore's measures have themselves made his character an issue in the campaigns against his measures. Justifiably so, I would add.

This move by Sizemore is classic. He knows that his submission was unprecedented and unanticipated and would not, therefore, be able to be rebutted within the Voter Pamphlet. That means in order to reach all those voters and rebut what I fully expect will be his typical, masterfully-misleading presentation of select facts and spin, his opponents would have to spend a fortune.

In any rebuttals of Sizemore's rebuttal, his opponents will have to be very careful and factual so as not to stray into libel and slander territory. So far, so good - you will notice that despite all the information they have ever released to the public about the man and his misdeeds, no one has yet been sued by Sizemore for libel or slander (if he had such a case, I have no doubt he would pursue it). But sometimes in desperation, people say things that aren't quite factual and which could cross a line. For instance, the unions have taken to calling Sizemore a "racketeer," which is only marginally accurate in my opinion, but it is definitely inaccurate to call him a "convicted racketeer." One such slip-up and they would open the door to even more Sizemore spin, if not a lawsuit, and that can only help him.

I must say I'm amused by his response to The Oregonian's online version of the article:

Bradbury tried hard to keep the truth from Oregon voters, i.e., that my organization was railroaded by a stacked jury and biased Multnomah County judge, who concealed his blatant conflict of interest.

When voters read how badly the Multnomah County Court handled this case, they will think twice about believing all the attacks the teachers unions are spewing forth.

It is worth noting that Bradbury never said that any of the facts set forth in my arguments were false or libelous. He merely claimed they were irrelevant. The unions call me a racketeer dozens of times and it's relevant, but I challenge their claims with two statements and those are somehow "irrelevant."

Next time he puts measures on the ballot, his character may well be addressed by his opponents in their statements, so this is likely a one-shot deal for Sizemore. I really can't wait to read his statements and will be fascinated to see whether they serve their intended purpose or whether Oregonians are smarter than he gives them credit for being.

Posted by Becky at 12:48 PM |

Another confirmed EX-McCainiac

Elizabeth Drew: How John McCain Lost Me

I have been a longtime admirer of John McCain. During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries I publicly defended McCain against the pro-Bush Republicans' whisper campaign that he was too unstable to be president (aware though I was that he had a temper). Two years later I published a positive book about him, "Citizen McCain."

That whisper campaign in 2000 was brought to you by one of McCain's newest employees - Tucker Eskew.

I admired John McCain as a man of principle and honor. He had become emblematic of someone who spoke his mind, voted his conscience, and demonstrated courage in bucking his own party and fighting for what he believed in. He gained a well-deserved reputation as a maverick. He was seen as taking principled positions on such issues as tax equity (opposing the newly elected Bush’s tax cut), fighting political corruption, and, later, taking on the Bush administration on torture. He came off as a man of decency. He took political risks.

Ditto. That was exactly my sense of him too.

Now he's back to declaring himself a maverick, but it's not clear what that means. If he gains the presidency, is he going to rebel against the base he's now depending on to get him elected? (Hence his selection of running mate Sarah Palin.) Campaigns matter. If he means "shaking up the system" (which is not the same thing), opposing earmarks doesn't cut it.

McCain's recent conduct of his campaign – his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition – has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.
In fact, it's not clear who he is.

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by Kevin at 08:32 AM |

September 17, 2008

Guest Column: Kosher Candidate

Kosher Candidate
By Sankara Saranam

With the impending collapse of the US economy, you’d think evangelical Christians would face the fact that they banked on the wrong savior in George W. Bush. Think again.

McCain certainly has. John bore his cross for seven years in a Vietnamese prison camp, but in running for president, he quickly realized that being militarily crucified does not a savior make in the eyes of the evangelical electorate. In an age where Republican presidential candidates must look good with an airbrushed halo in order to win, McCain picked Palin to give a virgin birth to his candidacy.

It seems to be working, especially because Christians can be counted upon to pick the wrong messiah over and over again. McCain is counting on that too, which is ostensibly why he’d rather look all wrong to any sane political observer than alright.

The first messiah Christians got wrong was the first one of them all, Jesus. But even when Christians figure it out, they just un-figure it out. Bear with me through this.

A few weeks ago one Sunday morning, a right-wing conservative Fox News viewing Christian who writes to me from time to time -- coincidentally, her name is Sarah -- was quietly dozing during Bible study. Suddenly, she jumped with a startle and her eyes fell on a strange thing: Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

She read that earmarked page a thousand times before, but this time it hit her like a ton of congressional pork. If Joseph was not the father of Jesus, then Jesus’s family tree -- provided on the first page of Matthew, starting from King David and ending with Joseph -- was as relevant to her as Global Warming science.

"I learned from a young age," she wrote to me, "that the coming messiah had to be a scion of King David. Well, I looked up the word 'scion' recently, and that was the missing link. Not that [cough] there is a missing link."

If Jesus was not the son of Joseph, he could not be the messiah because the messiah had to be a descendant of King David. But who was the messiah?

At first, Sarah was perplexed, and Lord knows it was a matter of life and death to the Iraqis.

"At first, I didn't know," she complained. "Maybe Joseph was. Maybe one of Joseph’s sons born from Mary was. Whoever it was, it wasn't Jesus." She, like millions of other Christians, got the wrong messiah.

Could there be other false prophets in their midst? No time to ask, apparently.

Sarah went through a crisis of faith, but predictably rebounded with what she says her church calls "Extra Strength Conviction with Scouring Power." Sounds like a term out of Scientology's lexicon, but it was just good old-fashion denial doing its job of protecting an insecure mind.

The one thing keeping Jesus from being her savior was the virgin birth, and Sarah could take care of that as easily as banning a book from her house.

After all, the only thing that got in the way of her own sons being born of a virgin was unbiased observation.

But could she ban Matthew? In the throws of her Extra Strength whatever it is, she didn’t have to. She simply banned any thinking from her mind.

Sarah privately pontificated in an E-mail: "King David's blood is probably everywhere by now, well, probably not much of it in Democrats. Whoever the next messiah is, he has to come through [lot's of] blood. That's why Republican presidents all want to be war presidents. That's also why no woman has the right to potentially abort the messiah and make the end of days not end on time."

Umm…

After McCain won the Republican nomination, I asked Sarah if she thought he might be the messiah. She felt certain of it, and doubly so after he picked Palin as his running mate.

"Even Ms. Palin's name is special. Our minister told us that her name, 'Sarah,' like my name, is the same as the Hebrew word 'kosher.' And is it jut a coincidence that 'deified' is a palindrome? Our next vice-president is going to be kosher saintly woman."

Well, that settles it!

Meanwhile, I wondered whether VP Palin would be as kosher as the meat coming out of AgriProcessors, of Postville, Iowa, kosher meat producers now under investigation for countless violations that somehow none of their kosher-keeping fundamentalist Jewish consumers noticed.

The kosher label in politics and on our plates appears to be a useful ploy. Either way, McCain’s kosher-Sarah pick worked.

Then again, my Sarah was sure George W. Bush was the messiah too. Did she still think he was kosher?

She resented my asking of the question, and then became upset with me.

Finally, she exclaimed, "Stop it! Us trying to figure out who might be the messiah is like building a bridge to nowhere!"

After hundreds of exchanges with true believers that ended like that, and worse, I always wondered why fundamentalist Christians were not very good at building bridges. At last, I know.

Why build a bridge when you live in the clouds?

Sankara Saranam

email: SSaranam@pranayama.org
Website: www.pranayama.org

Posted by Kevin at 10:04 AM |

Gay hating Cali-vangelical fatcat lines own pockets

A reader emailed me a link to this breaking story which dovetails perfectly with a post I wrote earlier this year on televangelist's extravagant salaries.

It’s a little like the loaves and fishes parable, but in reverse.

Now there is an understatement...

California Family Council Foundation, a non-profit based in Riverside and led by Yorba Linda’s Ron Prentice (who was recently vice president for public affairs at socially conservative Focus on the Family), exists "to protect and foster Judeo-Christian principles in California’s laws, for the benefit of its families," says its web site.

The Council is against gay marriage. Prentice, its CEO, is also chairman of ProtectMarriage.com - YES on 8, the stop-gays-from-marrying initiative on November’s ballot.

This is where it starts to get interesting. Ron Prentice pays himself a salary of $186,338 as head of the CFCF "nonprofit".

Nonprofit watchdogs like Charity Navigator and the Better Business Bureau like to see no more than 35 percent spent on management and fundraising combined; and at least 65 percent on programs, the charity’s core mission.

CFCF turns that on it's head by spending 55% on management and spending a paltry 20% on programs.

For the anti-gay Prop 8 which Prentice also runs? Prentice's CFCF gave $2,100.

That's right, the allegedly "non-profit" CFCF pays Prentice nearly 89 times more on his salary than it was willing to give to the ballot measure which he also runs.

Posted by Kevin at 09:15 AM |

September 16, 2008

A history lesson for Palin

Posted by Kevin at 07:04 PM |

Irony = Union Employees Strike... Against Union

OEA workers strike... against OEA

The front-line workers at the state's teachers union who help teachers bargain for contracts and hold school districts to contract terms are out on a strike of their own.

About 40 percent of the employees of the Oregon Education Association went on strike Monday.

OEA managers want those workers, members of the Oregon Professional Staff Organization, to pay more of their health care costs, get less retirement pay, earn less comp time and serve larger workloads of OEA members, said Catherine Alexander, president of the professional staff union.

Posted by Kevin at 08:40 AM |

McCain = McSame

Posted by Kevin at 08:23 AM |

September 15, 2008

Richard Wright R.I.P.

Pink Floyd founding member, keyboardist, song writer and sometimes vocalist Richard Wright died today of cancer.

Wright may be best known for writing Great Gig in the Sky on Pink Floyd's seminal "Dark Side of the Moon" album. But I will best remember him for writing another song on that album which is one of my favorite Floyd songs ever - "Us and Them".

Over the last 15 years or so I've grown to be a big fan of Pink Floyd. They are the one band which I've never seen live and whom I most wish I could go back in time and see in person.

Richard Wright came down on the side of David Gilmour in the great Gilmour/Waters divide. Which is interesting because Wright and Roger Waters grew up together and knew each other longer than either knew Gilmour. But as much as I admire the enormous talent of Roger Waters, Gilmour and Wright have always been my two favorite band members. Their songs just consistently speak to something deep inside me in a way that very, very few songs ever have.

Posted by Kevin at 12:08 PM |

What happened to John McCain?

Posted by Kevin at 09:14 AM |

Howard Dean on Barack Obama

Blue Oregon editors Jeff Alworth and Kari Chisolm interviewed Howard Dean last week in Portland.

This one quote sums up why I've been a fan of Howard Dean since 2004 and why I am going to vote for Barack Obama in November.

"What Barack is trying to accomplish is something Bush willfully chose not to do. Barack wants to be president of all America, not just the half that agrees with him."

Dean is the author of the vaunted 50-state strategy. Demonstrating that he is a class-act all the way, Dean doesn't toot his own horn but rather gives credit where credit is due.

"The reason he’s adopted the fifty-state strategy is because he wants to be the president even of people who don’t agree with him so he can reunify the country.

What a refreshing concept after having lived through the arrogantly divisive Bush/Cheney administration.

That’s what I find so refreshing, a candidate that wants to bring people together instead of what McCain is doing by driving them apart.

That goes to the root of one of the things that I find so very disappointing about John McCain. Accepting advice from Karl Rove and employing Tucker Eskew are NOT the choices of respectful or of a respectable candidate.

So being a player in every region of the country matters: North Carolina, Virginia is in play, there’s the western states that we talked about that are in play—and that hasn’t happened for a long, long time. And I think that’s the kind of President Barack Obama will be, someone who cares about all the American people, not just those who agree with him."

That is what America needs, now more than ever. A President who cares about all the American people, not just those who agree with him.

Posted by Kevin at 08:44 AM |

It's past time for a change

Posted by Kevin at 08:43 AM |

September 14, 2008

Community Organizer trumps Governor

Posted by Kevin at 09:40 AM |

September 12, 2008

Tax Prof questions Palin's tax returns

Jack Bog isn't just one of the most widely read Oregon bloggers. He's also a tax law professor and he's got some questions for Gov. Palin on her "per diem" allowances.

Meanwhile Democratic Veep candidate Joe Biden has released his tax records for the last 10 years.

Posted by Kevin at 10:11 AM |

Palin Interview: No Comment Necessary

The problems here are so obvious that no comment is necessary:

Posted by Becky at 08:12 AM |

September 11, 2008

A Guide to Palin’s Earmark Requests

David Nather, staff writer for CQ Politics, has kindly provided a resource for Americans who want to find out for ourselves what the real scoop is on Gov. Palin and the pork barrel politics she claims to oppose.

Meanwhile... Gov. Palin struggles to explain WHY she is qualified to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Proclaiming "I'm ready" doesn't mean that she is. After all, many of the mentally ill or down-and-out addicts/alcoholics living on the streets of America would just as confidently proclaim themselves ready too.

Seems to me that voters have an obligation at the very least to ourselves to determine whether such proclamations are meritorious or vacuous.

If the apparent disconnect between Palin's claims about pork barrel politics and her own record of engaging in the same is any indication of the veracity of her other qualifying claims then I think that American voters have good reason to be skeptical.

Posted by Kevin at 09:07 PM |

September 10, 2008

Ever Wondered What's Wrong with GM Food?

It can't be that bad, can it? Yes, actually, it can.

Posted by Becky at 10:21 AM |

September 09, 2008

Troopergate just the tip of the iceberg?

It's beginning to look like it.

The Palin administration won't release hundreds of emails from her office, claiming they cover confidential policy matters. Then why do the subject lines refer to a political foe, a journalist, and non-policy topics?

Todd Palin is First Dude in Alaska by virtue of being married to the Governor. Right? Check this out:

The list of still-secret emails includes a series of messages that circulated on February 1, 2008, among Palin, Bailey, Frye, and Todd Palin "re Andrew Halcro." A former Republican, Halcro ran as an independent against Palin for governor in 2006, collecting only 9 percent of the vote. Since then he has been a blogger who often criticizes Palin. There is no telling what the emails said about Halcro. But in a July blog posting, Halcro asked, "why in the world is Todd Palin getting copied on emails [about me] that his wife's administration is classifying as confidential....These emails should be released to the public....after all Todd Palin has no standing to claim executive privilege. By including him in the email loop, the Palin administration has arguably breached any claim of executive privilege." And McLeod wonders, "What do emails about Andrew Halcro have to do with policy deliberations?"

As a PK reader noted in his email alerting me to this story, "a husband is only a privileged communiquee when there are criminal proceedings."

Posted by Kevin at 08:23 PM |

Franken wins Dem Primary in Minnesota!

Yee Haw!!

Next up: incumbant Republican Senator Norm Coleman.

Posted by Kevin at 08:05 PM |

Q: What's the difference between Islamic Fundies and Palin?

A: Lipstick.

So says Juan Cole; author, blogger, professor and an expert on Islamic Fundies and other things Islamic, Middle Eastern and South Asian.

Didn't know that modern Islamic fundies are evolution-hating young-earth creationists like Sarah Palin?

Well they are.

Didn't know that Sarah Palin's stance on abortion is actually to the Right of the Parliment of the Islamic Republic of Iran? That the cleric's who over-rode the Parliment's proposed law did so to retain a harshly restrictive law virtually identical to what Palin preaches?

Yep. It's true.

Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so.

The kind of "reform" that Sarah Palin represents is not the kind of reform I am the least bit interested in seeing come to fruition.

Posted by Kevin at 08:34 AM |

September 08, 2008

Norquist and Rove for McCain? Gag Me.

I could not have been more amused than I was when I received in the mail on Saturday a “confidential” letter from Karl Rove containing the “2008 Election Battleplan.” Mr. Rove, whom I despise for his dirty tricks approach to politics, even called me his “Taxpaying Friend.” Tucked inside was a letter from Grover Norquist, Sizemore money launderer extraordinaire and former avowed enemy of John McCain, “urgently” asking for my help to elect Senator McCain to the Presidency. Imagine my delight to see that Grover Norquist was saying to me, “I need your help.” That help would come in the form of my “best contribution to help fund an enormous $18.6 million ‘Conservative Voter Mobilization Campaign’” – also known as “TAXPAYER MOBILIZATION 2008.” Of course, I have no money, which only adds to the humor. Apparently, because my now-embarrassing contribution of a sizeable chunk of my valuable time to one ignominious GOP gubernatorial candidate several years ago was reported as an “in-kind” contribution, my name has been placed on the list of major GOP contributors. I get the most interesting mail as a result.

Keeping in mind my emotionally exhausting, but sadly ineffective efforts to hold Grover Norquist accountable for breaking the law by laundering contributions for Bill Sizemore, despite the solid evidence I possessed (which greatly excited federal prosecutors until they inexplicably decided to drop the matter), please enjoy this wonderful excerpt from Mr. Norquist’s letter to me:

You and I may not have yet met personally. But I have taken the liberty to write to you because I am told you are a pro-freedom conservative who cares deeply about America.

He’s got that right. That’s why I wanted his sorry ass kicked out of GOP politics.

Personal humor aside, I find the whole letter even more comical considering that just last year, Norquist was outraged that McCain refused to sign the centerpiece of Norqust’s activist work – his “no new taxes” pledge. McCain further refused to promise to veto any tax increases. McCain has gone all wimpy on us since that time, however, issuing statements that went even further than Norquist was asking and sending goodwill ambassadors over to make up with Mr. Slimeball to win his support this year. I was disappointed in McCain then, and find that disappointment still stings despite his inspiring acceptance speech. But I can still enjoy the memories of such things as Norquist’s 2005 outburst, in which he called McCain “the nut-job from Arizona” and a “gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik.”

Back then, I thought if Norquist was against him, then he must be doing something right. McCain reminded us last week why he won the ire of crooks like Norquist:

I've fought corruption, and it didn't matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and had to be held accountable. I've fought big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, while you struggle to buy groceries, fill your gas tank and make your mortgage payment. I've fought to get million dollar checks out of our elections. I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes. I fought crooked deals in the Pentagon. I fought tobacco companies and trial lawyers, drug companies and union bosses…

I don't mind a good fight. For reasons known only to God, I've had quite a few tough ones in my life. But I learned an important lesson along the way. In the end, it matters less that you can fight. What you fight for is the real test.

I fight for Americans. I fight for you. …

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.

We're going to change that.

That perked up my ears. He told me what I wanted to hear, what I had been hoping for years that a Republican would say, and he punctuated that message by selecting a running mate with a reformer’s reputation. Now the question is whether he really means it. Has polling shown him what he needs to say to us disaffected former Republicans if he intends to snap us out of our attraction to Barack Obama? If he wins the election, will he give in again to the forces of darkness, or will he actually take out the trash?

I have to say that if he’s got Norquist and Rove - the biggest piles of trash currently in Washington - trying this hard to get him elected, then it’s not looking real good to me.

Posted by Becky at 01:32 PM |

The Whoppers Just Keep on Coming

An article in The Oregonian this weekend about a certain anti-tax activist caught my eye. I use the term "anti-tax activist" specifically because I know it bothers him. Anyway, it caught my eye because in it, that individual tells another of his legendary whoppers:

As for diverting resources from his opponents, Sizemore said, "It's not my goal. It's something I have in the back of my mind. If a measure keeps my enemies busy, that's not necessarily a bad thing."

I almost choked when I read that. Because I know for a fact that we all were super-impressed with his awesome plan for costing the unions tons of money they would otherwise spend advancing their own interests. You see, that was the central sales pitch for his massive, unprecedented 7-ballot-measures-at-once effort in 2000. Polling showed from the very beginning that at least one of those measures would never pass, but that was OK with Sizemore because the measure's sole purpose was to soak up a lot of union money - leaving our opponents with insufficient resources to tear down those measures that our polling showed could actually pass.

The merit pay for teachers measure was a "throw-away" (his words, not mine), and he spent no time or money on passing it. He even sent me, entirely unprepared and unsupported, to debate the unions on that measure on live television because he had no interest in spending any time on it at all. It was not just a plan that was in the "back of his mind." Using up union funds was the only purpose for putting that measure on the ballot.

So keep all that in mind while you enjoy the incredulity of the response he has posted to the article:

There is another story behind all these ongoing union lawsuits against OTU and me. The lawsuits are merely efforts to get me out of politics and "take out" a political enemy. Nothing more than that. And the deck has been stacked against me.

When the OEA sued OTU back in 2002, union lawyers were allowed to remove all the Republicans from the Multnomah County jury pool, leaving us a stacked jury of 14 Democrats and one Green Party member. Ed Walsh omitted that glaring fact from his story.

But the railroad job didn't stop there. Ed Walsh also failed to mention that the Multnomah County judge who handled the case, Judge Jerome LaBarre, concealed for the three years that he handled the case, the fact that his son was an activist and member in the OEA, the same union that was suing in his dad's court.

One would think that an honorable judge would inform the parties of such a blatant conflict of interest. The judge only confessed his dirty little secret when his son was elected as a teachers union president and Judge LaBarre realized his conflict would be made public.

Public employee unions control this state from top to bottom and fighting them is a thankless job. Unfortunately, given the timidity of most Republican officeholders, the initiative process is the only way to challenge their power and so I keep at it.

Saying that I only do this for the money is a typical union cheap shot. I don't know anyone who would do what I do for twice the money. Besides, if I didn't get paid, I would do this for free.

You buy that? Neither do I. And since that merit pay measure is back on the ballot this time, too, I expect that is his plan again.

Posted by Becky at 01:32 PM |

ORP owes Kerry, Oregonians an apology

McCain made his experience as a veteran a central reason for electing him. On the stump and in his speech to the Republican National Convention last Thursday he and his fellow Republicans talked it up at length. Indeed, his own campaign website has a section entitled "why McCain" that relies exclusively on his service in Vietnam to answer that rhetorical question before getting to any other additional reasons.

So, it came as a sharp surprise when I was perusing my old hometown newspaper, The Medford Mail Tribune, and read this past Friday's post on the MT's "Delegate Diary" blog written by Oregon delegate (and Jackson County resident) Donna Cain gushing about McCain's speech. Ms. Cain noted a text message from an Oregonian serving in Iraq to his Delegate wife about how McCain's speech had moved him to tears.

I'll get to why it surprised me, but first, Donna Cain's creds: Secretary of Oregon Republican Party, RNC 2008 Platform subcommittee member, 2008 RNC Delegate from Oregon and 2004 RNC Delegate from Oregon.

Notice the "purple heart" bandaged wrist in the bottom right corner of that graphic? That's Donna Cain's arm.

Cain defended her wearing of the "purple heart" band-aid to a CNN reporter.

Kerry, she said, "has made the war that he served in far more important than his recent records of the last 18 to 20 years."

Challenged as to whether the bandage mocked veterans who were injured in the line of duty Ms. Cain responded with,

"It is not in any way defaming of them, because I know people who have received Purple Hearts and I know that they're not boasting about their war record.

McCain is ignoring his own "recent record of the last 18 to 20 years" about being one of the Keating Five... his steadfast opposition to any holiday honoring MLK Jr.... the lobbyists who are running his campaign and advising him. Did anyone at the convention mention his extraordinary record of policy and issue flip-flops? No! But both he and the RNC spent more than a little time talking up McCain's war record, including the fact that he too was awarded a Purple Heart. In fact, I would say that it forms the corner stone of his much-vaunted qualification to be Commander in Chief.

And how does Donna Cain's delegate diary characterize how she feels about having listened to all the talk and watching the video presentations about McCain's war record and his Purple Heart at the convention?

"Intense excitement," "great speech by John McCain," "feeling really good."

Dick Armey addressed the Oregon Delegates to this year's convention over breakfast saying that "When we’re like us, we win. When we’re not like us, we lose".

I'm a little confused. Was Oregon Republican Party secretary, RNC 2008 Platform subcommittee member and Oregon GOP Delegate Donna Cain being "like us" in 2004 when she objected to any mention of wartime heroism? Or in 2008 when she seems peachy keen with it?

Posted by Kevin at 08:31 AM |

September 05, 2008

Still an Ex-McCainiac

John McCain = agent of change? I used to think so.

When McCain ran in 2000 I didn't just stick my toes in the water to test how comfy it was, I jumped into the deep end of the pool. In fact, my very first website - a previous version of The Independent Voter - was dedicated to rallying Independents to John McCain's candidacy. I still have several "McCain 2000" bumper stickers that I got from the guy who headed up his Oregon campaign after McCain conceded the race to George W. Bush, whose record impressed me as someone unqualified to run either the country or a business.

I remember well the moral outrage I felt when Tucker Eskew and pals led a bunch of fellow "Christians" in South Carolina in suggesting, on behalf of George W. Bush, that McCain's adopted Bengali daughter was really the lovechild from an illicit affair he'd supposedly had with a black woman, and how he ought to be ashamed of her.

I cheered inside when McCain said in a 2000 interview that "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like (Tucker Eskew)".

An "agent of change" wouldn't have just hired Tucker Eskew for any role. Not even to help his running mate Sarah Palin, which is what Eskew was hired to do.

That's not action of an "agent of change." That's more of the same... literally.

But that's not where he lost me. This is where he lost me:

After the slime and mud heaped on McCain by Bush I just couldn't stomach such an abject display of... groveling. It appeared then and still does that McCain wanted another shot at power more than he wanted to take a principled stand. And as a father of two daughters I can guarantee that if you slimed them like Bush's surrogates slimed McCain's adopted daughter there would be hell to pay, not a pathetic tucked-tail display with someone who clearly cared more about waving to the crowd than in aknowledging such an intimate embrace. The body language of the two men speaks volumes about their motivations and desires at that moment in time.

On the two most important issues right now in America - the economy and the Iraq War - John McCain represents more of the same rather than change.

After adamently opposing the Bush tax cuts when they were first proposed McCain now promises more of the same.

John McCain supported and voted for the fiscally and morally disasterous Iraq War. He continues to this day to support it. But of more relevance to this election, McCain has continually echoed President Bush's rhetoric in rejecting and ridiculing any sort of timetable for getting our brave soldiers out of that ongoing mess even though Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has expressed agreement with Barack Obama's 16-month timeframe for withdrawel - which McCain then turned around and agreed with.

That my friends is more of the same obstinate adherence to preexisting beliefs rather than anything resembling either independent thinking or change.

Ultimately, John McCain has himself made the case for why he represents more of the same,

"No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

There you have it - more of the same failed policies and inept leadership. His highly honorable actions and choices during the Vietnam War no more qualify him to be President now than he considered John Kerry's to qualify him to be President in 2004.

John McCain = agent of change? His own record of flip-flops screams otherwise.

Posted by Kevin at 02:21 PM |

"Presidents' Pension" Chain Email

Chain emails are apparently a great way to spread idiocy from one person to another, because they are coming fast a furious right now. Here's one that I received from FOUR different people this week:

President's Pension: A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old.

Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension.

Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig - this one tries to make McCain's age a good thing. And the sad thing is if you could read the accompanying comments I have received, you'd see these people are actually buying the whole nonsensical idea. So I decided to respond to the garbage. Not sure how appreciated my answer was, but here's what I sent:

(Please note that I acknowledge I have heavily quoted, with edits and without attribution, from other sources.)

Former Presidents continue to serve the country and the world for all their lives. They counsel subsequent presidents, act as ambassadors, work on projects to help advance peace, etc. For example, look at what Jimmy Carter has done since he was president.

After leaving office, Carter and his wife Rosalynn founded The Carter Center, a nongovernmental, not-for-profit organization that works to advance human rights. He has traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, observe elections, and advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. He is also a key figure in the Habitat for Humanity project.

Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton worked together to raise money for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and for the victims of the 2004 tsunami.

Bill Clinton has met with the United Nations Secretary-General about dealing with disease, war, famine and poverty in Africa, the Middle East, the conflict in Iraq, and Iran's nuclear standoff with the U.N., as well as HIV/AIDS. He wrote a book last year about citizen activism and the role of public charity and public service in the modern world. His foundation works to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment, and prevention programs, as well as to address world problems such as global public health, poverty alleviation and religious and ethnic conflict. His foundation also got major soft drink manufacturers to stop selling sugared sodas and juice drinks, in public primary and secondary schools within the United States to help prevent childhood obesity. He is working with cities to benefit from cooperative purchasing of energy-saving technology and to get technical support for that.

You might notice that Democrats Carter and Clinton have accomplished quite a lot of good for the public at large with their retirement, while Republican Bush, Sr. does not seem to have done much that is purely charitable. That's because he's been awfully busy fishing and stuff. But most former presidents are well worth the money we spend on them. Especially since they spend four to eight years in the most high-pressure job in the world and don't get paid any more per year than a doctor.

In the event that Barack Obama is elected and actually survives long enough to serve as President, can you imagine the good he could do for the world? The possible strides that could be made toward true equality, for example, are thrilling to contemplate. In any case, to dismiss the Presidential pension as nothing more than an overpriced, obligatory expense is not only ungrateful and cheap, it's ignorant as hell.

Posted by Becky at 12:38 PM |

OK, Now We Have a Race

Eight years ago when I was still a Republican, I was disappointed that John McCain wasn't the party's nominee. Another President Bush was the last thing I wanted to see. Since that time, I have become disillusioned not only with the Republican Party, but with John McCain for seemingly losing his edge. It has appeared to me that he has been cozying up to the very same individuals who are responsible for nearly destroying the party I always considered my home.

I have been very intrigued and impressed with Barack Obama, though I am not thrilled with his choice of Joe Biden as a V.P. and don't agree with some of his platform. Nevertheless, I believe he would make a great president. But until this week, I was entirely unimpressed with McCain's campaign. Not only has it seemed to me that he has lost his backbone, he has also come across as old, dull, and without that fire that used to speak to me.

After listening to his acceptance speech (part 1 is here), however, it seems the old John McCain is back. Add to that his selection of Sarah Palin as his V.P. and suddenly he has deftly and all at once addressed all the concerns that true conservatives have had about his candidacy and the future of the party. Although I don't agree with him on all the issues and could nitpick him and Palin to pieces as well as anyone, I am impressed that he has pulled this off.

I will grant that someone who is not a conservative, or someone who hates conservatives, would not understand what I am saying here. But for those who are looking for populist-oriented reform, this has suddenly become a race. I'm very excited about it at last because either way it goes, I can see something hopeful in the future. I have no illusions about our readers here being able to relate to my enthusiasm. But Republicans have in the past week largely moved from holding their noses to being downright giddy. And that is worth noting.

Posted by Becky at 09:15 AM |

September 04, 2008

Why Guiliani is 9 times more qualified for Veep than Palin

The AP's Jim Kuhnhenn Fact-Checks GOP claims at the convention.

Here's just one which reveals why Gov. Palin is significantly less qualified to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

Palin has executive control over about 4,200 Guardsmen as long as they're not being used in their full martial capacity. In full martial mode Gov. Palin would have precisely ZERO executive control over all but the few who remained home to file paperwork.

New York City's police department has 37,800 personnel over whom Guiliani had ultimate executive control 24/7/365

The Armed Forces of the United States total something close to 1.5 million.

Gov. Palin isn't even qualified to run the NYPD, much less the Department of Defense.

(Update: Hmmm... memo indicates that Alaska Guard is struggling)

(Update 2: Gov. Palin's "Commander-in-Chief" experience is virtually nonexistant.)

Posted by Kevin at 09:01 AM |

September 03, 2008

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

I've been very remiss, having been sorely distracted with shooting into this barrel full of Palin fish that McCain has inexplicably decided to stick in front of me.

There are much more important things in life.

Such as...

Terrence (aka The Republic of T) recently celebrated 16 years of sobriety and was kind enough to link back to a couple of my recent posts with two of his own:

Addict's Almanac

Ain’t It Funny How Time Slips…

Go.

Read them.

You'll be glad you did.

Meanwhile, when I reorganized our blogrolls here I trimmed a bunch of blogs out. One of which was The Republic of T. That was a mistake which I'm heading into the hinterlands of PK to remedy. I'd forgotten what a good and sincere, not to mention entertaining, writer he is...

Posted by Kevin at 10:26 PM |

Gov. Palin: Iraq War & Gas Pipeline = God's Will

How does John McCain think he's going to "reform" Washington D.C. when his Veep pick is just another whack job TheoCon?

In 2005 Bush showed he was as loony as Osama bin Laden by claiming, God told me to invade Iraq.

Just a few months ago in June Gov. Palin channeled Bush by claiming that sending our sons and daughters to fight in Iraq is God's will.

But that's not even the truly scary part. That much can at least be explained as religious zealotry, however insane the end result was. Oh no, she went further and claimed that getting a particular natural gas pipeline - which she just happened to be politically supporting - is ALSO God's will.

A gas pipeline??? God's will???

And where did she get those sorts of twisted notions? Well, let's just say that her pastor makes Jeremiah Wright look like a gentle-souled choir boy in comparison.

The NYT editorial board has it right.

Mr. McCain’s snap choice of Ms. Palin reflects his impulsive streak: a wild play that he made after conservative activists warned him that he would face an all-out revolt in the party if he chose who he really wanted — Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Why Mr. McCain would want to pander to right-wing activists — who helped George W. Bush kill off his candidacy in the 2000 primaries in a particularly ugly way — is baffling. Frankly, they have no place to go. Mr. McCain would have a lot more success demonstrating his independence, and his courage, if he stood up to them the way he did in 2000.

As far as we can tell, Mr. McCain and his aides did almost no due diligence before choosing Ms. Palin, raising serious questions about his management skills. The fact that Ms. Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant is irrelevant to her candidacy. There are, however, very serious questions about her political past and her ideology, including her links to a party advocating Alaska’s secession from the nation.

Posted by Kevin at 09:37 PM |

OUCH!! Murphy and Noonan trash Palin

... on an open mic they thought was dead!

Via Politico

Posted by Kevin at 02:59 PM |

What is God trying to tell Republicans?

Hurricane Gustav is gone but Hannah and Ike are on their way, disrupting and distracting the nation's attention away from the frankly boring GOP convention.

"Christian" mega-preachers Pat Robertson and John Hagee having established that God sends hurricanes as retribution upon sinful Americans, I'm wondering what their thousands of followers make of all this retribution having clearly been saved up until after the Dems finished their convention to be let loose upon America?

The calm - and one is tempted to say heavenly - weather during the Dems convention was surely as much an act of Divine approval as this series of destructive storms crashing into America during the Repubs convention, no?

Posted by Kevin at 01:15 PM |

Dr. Laura "disappointed" in Palin choice

Here's the money shot... er... quote

I’m stunned - couldn’t the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain?

Indeed! I think most of America is wondering that same basic question. There are any number of infinitely more qualified conservative GOPer woman that McCain could have picked. Surely Senator Hutchison (R-TX) has got to be near the top of that list.

Posted by Kevin at 12:30 PM |

McCain & Palin share one trait - they're both vindictive

Sarah Palin apparently has a history of firing those who don't do what she wants that extends back to her first days as Mayor of tiny Wasilla.

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support.

McCain's vindictive streak is much better known. Most recently CNN was at the receiving end of it. Why?

The McCain campaign was pressed by CNN to answer a simple question: Can you name one example of when Sarah Palin has used her executive powers to command or direct Alaska's National Guard? Just one. To punish CNN for having the gall to ask that question -- and ask it again because they didn't get an answer the first time -- McCain decided he won't do an interview with CNN's Larry King. (The campaign never answered the question.)

Meanwhile, according to SSI statistics a man McCain's age is 10 times more likely to die before the end of this upcoming Presidential term than a man Obamas age is.

Do we really want to entrust the might of America's nuclear arsenal, not to mention our economy and civil rights, to an unqualified, poorly vetted, vindictive person waiting behind an even more vindictive 72 year old heartbeat?

(Update: More examples of McCain's vindictiveness)

Posted by Kevin at 12:11 PM |

September 02, 2008

Bookies bet McCain will drop Palin

Via Bloomberg

Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The smart money thinks there's a better chance today than yesterday that John McCain will dump Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Since Sunday the odds have dropped from a high of 28-1 to as low as 8-1.

(Breaking: Palin's pork requests confound reformer image)

Posted by Kevin at 11:28 AM |

Palin & AIP - Is a Secessionist an appropos Veep?

Alaska Governor and presumptive GOP Veep candidate Sarah Palin was a member of the pro-secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.

Any suggestions that her AIP membership was but a youthful indisgression are dispelled by the fact that earlier this year she recorded a welcoming address for the 2008 AIP Convention.

(Update: A commenter on a Lakewood Observer message board muses that perhaps Gov. Palin's desire to fly all the way from Texas to Alaska to give birth might be connected secessionist AIP views. Which, if it's anything akin to 19th century Confederate views about the Yankee North, actually makes some sense in a twisted sorta way.)

TPM has very good coverage of this.

Posted by Kevin at 08:10 AM |

September 01, 2008

Merkley urges Oregonians to support disaster relief

(from a campaign email)

Friends --

With Hurricane Gustav making landfall in Louisiana and countless Americans having to evacuate the Gulf Coast region, our campaign wanted to take this opportunity to let you know how you can help people living in those affected areas.

Speaker Merkley is asking Oregonians to come to the aid of our fellow Americans in need:

"Our brothers and sisters in the Gulf Coast region are threatened by Hurricane Gustav, and they need our aid right now. I know Oregonians are generous and compassionate, and I hope everyone does what they can in this time of need.

"In support of the relief efforts, Mary and I will be donating to the American Red Cross. If you have the ability, please join us by donating what you can to the Red Cross, so they can rush disaster relief where it is badly needed.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the individuals and families who now face Hurricane Gustav, and we hope for their continued well-being and security." - Jeff Merkley

Posted by Kevin at 07:26 PM |

Palin Babygate, more questions than answers

March 6th, 2008: Gov. Palin announces that she is 7 months pregnant.

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who's always been trim, simply doesn't look pregnant.

More to the point...

She's known as a fashion plate, but said she hasn't been dressing differently to cover her barely perceptible bulge.

It's unclear whether that is Gov. Palin describing her own "barely perceptible bulge" or the reporter giving his own color commentary. Either way, the article clearly portrays her pregnancy as having been utterly unsuspected even by those who work closest with her on a daily basis and weekly basis.

Here's a photo reportedly taken exactly 13 days later on March 19th showing what looks to be an obviously pregnant Gov. Palin.

Now, there is some dispute as to when that photo was taken. Firstly because the time stamp on it is March 19th 2005, which would be before she was even Governor. But the photo is titled "Last day wrap up" and characterized as having been taken on the last day of the Alaskan legislative session - which according to the Lege's website was April 13th, 2008. Which would have been just days before she gave birth and just over a month after her public announcement. BUT... the photo was uploaded yesterday and comes amid what appears to be a concerted effort to scrub, move or remove photos connected to baby Trig both on Alaska state government websites and on the site of the hospital where baby Trig was reportedly born.

Reasonable folks may well wonder whether this new photo showing a very pregnant Governor Palin was... doctored.

Then there is the statement by an Air Alaska spokeswoman that on the night before the birth when Governor Palin flew back to Alaska from Texas "(t)he stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation". That was either April 18th or 19th, just a few days after the very pregnant Palin photo was allegedly taken.

Additionally, Anchorage Daily News reporter Kyle Hopkins (who covers the politics beat) admitted yesterday that the national rumors that have been breaking all weekend are just variations of existing rumors that swirled around Alaska between Gov. Palin's March 6th pregnancy bombshell and McCain picking her as his Veep late last week.

IOW, many Alaskans had apparently been suspicious about this alleged pregnancy long before any of us heard about it.

Today Kyle Hopkins reports that as recently as Saturday Palin spokesman Bill McAllister didn't know that the Governor's daughter was pregnant. McAllister also indicated that Governor Palin approached him BEFORE her March 6th pregnancy announcement and denied a rumor that her daughter was pregnant THEN.

Now, supposedly the Palin daughter is 5 months pregnant, which means that she would have gotten pregnant AFTER her mom's March 6th announcement. But the official statement from Gov. Palin and her husband doesn't indicate how far along their daughter's pregnancy is.

(Update: Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process)

Posted by Kevin at 04:47 PM |

Palin corruption probe continues, Palin hires defense attorney

Gov. Sarah Palin has hired an attorney to defend her and members of her staff in the investigation into the firing of her public safety commissioner.

Surprised?

No, I didn't think so.

Posted by Kevin at 03:09 PM |

Debunking McCain's "Experience" Canard

Debunking the Presidential "Experience" Canard by examining the commonalities between Barack Obama and one of our greatest Presidents ever - Abraham Lincoln.

• Both came from obscurity and very humble socio-economic backgrounds.

• Both physically thin and very tall.

• Both met and married their respective Illinoian wives, in Illinois.

• Both vocally opposed existing Wars and alleged deliberate deception by the Presidents who started them. Lincoln, the Mexican War. Obama, the Iraq War. And both did so at a time when public sentiments were strongly in favor of the respective Wars.

• Both advocated paradigm shifts in race relations.

• Both practiced law in Illinois.

• Both demonstrated knowledge of and competence in Constitutional law. Lincoln by being admitted to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama by teaching Contitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years.

• Both served multiple terms in the Illinois state legislature.

• Both served a single term in the U.S. Congress before running for President. Lincoln in the House and Obama in the Senate.

• Both nominated to run for U.S. President with nearly identical elective resumes consisting of multiple terms in the Illinois state lege and a single term in Congress.

• Both younger than the average age of the elected first-term Presidents who preceeded them. Lincoln by 5 years, Obama by 8 years. Although both were preceeded by several Presidents who had been even younger when inaugurated.

• Both faced significantly older General Election opponents. McCain is at 72 years old the oldest non-incumbent Presidential candidate in our nation's history. Well, unless you want to include perennial spoiler wannabe Ralph Nader who is 74.

• Both significantly younger at nomination than the sitting President. Lincoln by 18 years, Obama by 14 years.
  

Abraham Lincoln went on to unparalleled greatness, literally preserving and reshaping our nation's premise and promise of freedom and justice for all so the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence no longer rang hollow in proclaiming that "all men are created equal. "

Time will tell what a President Barack Obama will bring us. But it is clear that the naysayers in the Republican Party are playing Americans for idiots by challenging Obama's "experience" to lead when Lincoln led magnificantly with nearly identical "experience" and a vastly inferior education.

Posted by Kevin at 02:56 PM |