"If we don't approve this bailout plan, we may be on the path to the next Great Depression," or so Sarah Palin believes (not an actual quote, but I'm paraphrasing). So the Republicans now are begging the federal government to intervene in private business. Wait...what? The Republicans, champions of Free Market, Invisible Hand, Keep-the-Government-Out-of-My-Paycheck Econmics...surely they cannot be saying this!
The fact of the matter is, the Republicans again are lying, swindling little hypocrites who again are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Now I will be the first one to admit that I am no Democrat, but this is yet another point on why I WILL NEVER CAST A VOTE FOR THAT PARTY!
Let's call this situation was it is: a FAILURE of the economics of Republican-ism. Deregulation of the banking industry caused this! We (the people, through our "elected officials" stood by while this happened. We asked no question, we did nothing. If we (the people, through our "elected officials") had any voice, any oversight over the financial sector, then maybe we the people wouldn't be shelling out SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!
Republicans have been proudly vocalizing "Free Enterprise!" "Socialism is Evil!" and so on, and time and time again, history proves them wrong...this is yet another example.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party, led by Presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolige, and Herbert Hoover, believed like the Bush Administration did in that the government has no business in the economy, and turned a blind eye to the problems in the economy. What happened? The Great Depression. It took a Democratic President and Socalist-like programs to get this country back on track. Eighty years later we were repeating the same mistakes.
Ronald Reagan in the 1980s was a champion of deregulation, and our country soon was in a recession throughout most of Bush 41's administration. Then, all of a sudden, Clinton enters office, rolls back the Reagan degregulations, and what happens? Our economy moves into prosperity unlike any we had ever seen.
The Republicans are bad for the economy. Why? Because it is a party (sorry, Evangelists) run by the wealthiest of the wealthy. Rich people out for their own interests. It is in their financial interest that the government stays away, mostly because the government (remember, our (the people's) elected officials) will make sure they are doing the right thing for the country and not necessarily for their pocketbooks.
Oh, by the way, the world's two richest men, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are voting for Obama. If the two richest people in the world won't even vote for McCain, that should tell you something. The Republicans will continue to degrade the economy, and always have.
So yes, Sarah Palin, we may be heading towards another Great Depression, but it, like the one before it, was caused by Republican policies.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Wha?
BY LEONARD PITTS JR. • McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS • September 9, 2008
"We need change, all right. Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington. We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington -- throw out the big-government liberals."
-- Mitt Romney, Sept. 3, 2008
And then the gorilla run knee socks paint porno on the Cadillac. But school laughed and didn't we sing hats? Ahem. Maybe you wonder what the preceding gobbledygook means. I would ask which gobbledygook you mean: mine or Mitt Romney's? If he's allowed to spew nonsense and people act as if he has spoken intelligently, why can't I? If he gets to behave as if words no longer have objective meaning, why can't I? I mean, baffle grab on the freak flake. Really. And again, ahem.
If you're a regular here, you've heard me rant from time to time about intellectual dishonesty. By this, I mean more than just your garden variety lie. No, to be intellectually dishonest means to argue that which you know to be untrue and to substitute ideology for intellect to the degree that you'll do violence to language and logic rather than cross the party line.
Yes, we're all intellectually dishonest on occasion. But no one does it like Republican conservatives. They are to intellectual dishonesty what Michael Jordan was to basketball or the Temptations to harmony: the avatar, the exemplar, the paradigm. They have elevated it beyond hypocrisy and political expedience. They have made it ... art.
Which returns us to the astonishing thing Mitt Romney said while addressing the party faithful in St. Paul, Minn. You want to walk around it the way you would Michelangelo's "David," admiring the elegance of the workmanship. You hesitate to touch it, much less pull it apart. To do so seems almost an act of desecration.
Unfortunately, some of us are too plodding and earthbound, too blind to the seductions of art, too stubbornly wedded to some vestigial notion that intellectual honesty matters, to walk past a steaming pile of bovine excreta without calling it a steaming pile of bovine excreta.
So excuse me, so sorry, but I have to ask: What liberal Washington is he talking about? The federal government has three branches. The legislative, i.e., Congress, was under conservative control from 1995 until 2007. The judicial, i.e., the Supreme Court, consists of nine justices, seven of whom were nominated by conservative presidents. The executive, i.e., the president, is George W. Bush. Enough said.
Washington is already what Romney wants to make it. Our current state of affairs, love it or loathe it, is indisputably a product of conservative governance. I wish that mattered more than it does.
That it doesn't matter much at all you can credit to conservative politicians who have, over the years, trained their followers to respond with Pavlovian faithfulness to certain terms. Say "conservative" and they wag their tails. Say "liberal" and they bare their fangs. More to the point, say either and all thinking ceases, so much so that a representative of the ideology that has controlled most of Washington most of the last 12 years can say with a straight face that his ideology needs to seize control of Washington to fix what is broken there. And people hear this Orwellian doublespeak ... and cheer. Why not? They have been taught that words mean what you need them to in a given moment.
Sadly, it has proved an easy lesson to impart. Turns out, all it requires is a limitless supply of gall and the inherent belief that people are dumber than a bag of hammers.
And all it costs us is language, the ability to have reasoned and intelligent political discourse, the
idea that words do, and should, have weight, dimension and intrinsic meaning. Maybe you disagree. In which case, let me just say this:
Piffle crack eat monkey snow. Really.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Write to him at lpitts@miamiherald.com.
pulled from the Detroit Free Press www.freep.com
"We need change, all right. Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington. We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington -- throw out the big-government liberals."
-- Mitt Romney, Sept. 3, 2008
And then the gorilla run knee socks paint porno on the Cadillac. But school laughed and didn't we sing hats? Ahem. Maybe you wonder what the preceding gobbledygook means. I would ask which gobbledygook you mean: mine or Mitt Romney's? If he's allowed to spew nonsense and people act as if he has spoken intelligently, why can't I? If he gets to behave as if words no longer have objective meaning, why can't I? I mean, baffle grab on the freak flake. Really. And again, ahem.
If you're a regular here, you've heard me rant from time to time about intellectual dishonesty. By this, I mean more than just your garden variety lie. No, to be intellectually dishonest means to argue that which you know to be untrue and to substitute ideology for intellect to the degree that you'll do violence to language and logic rather than cross the party line.
Yes, we're all intellectually dishonest on occasion. But no one does it like Republican conservatives. They are to intellectual dishonesty what Michael Jordan was to basketball or the Temptations to harmony: the avatar, the exemplar, the paradigm. They have elevated it beyond hypocrisy and political expedience. They have made it ... art.
Which returns us to the astonishing thing Mitt Romney said while addressing the party faithful in St. Paul, Minn. You want to walk around it the way you would Michelangelo's "David," admiring the elegance of the workmanship. You hesitate to touch it, much less pull it apart. To do so seems almost an act of desecration.
Unfortunately, some of us are too plodding and earthbound, too blind to the seductions of art, too stubbornly wedded to some vestigial notion that intellectual honesty matters, to walk past a steaming pile of bovine excreta without calling it a steaming pile of bovine excreta.
So excuse me, so sorry, but I have to ask: What liberal Washington is he talking about? The federal government has three branches. The legislative, i.e., Congress, was under conservative control from 1995 until 2007. The judicial, i.e., the Supreme Court, consists of nine justices, seven of whom were nominated by conservative presidents. The executive, i.e., the president, is George W. Bush. Enough said.
Washington is already what Romney wants to make it. Our current state of affairs, love it or loathe it, is indisputably a product of conservative governance. I wish that mattered more than it does.
That it doesn't matter much at all you can credit to conservative politicians who have, over the years, trained their followers to respond with Pavlovian faithfulness to certain terms. Say "conservative" and they wag their tails. Say "liberal" and they bare their fangs. More to the point, say either and all thinking ceases, so much so that a representative of the ideology that has controlled most of Washington most of the last 12 years can say with a straight face that his ideology needs to seize control of Washington to fix what is broken there. And people hear this Orwellian doublespeak ... and cheer. Why not? They have been taught that words mean what you need them to in a given moment.
Sadly, it has proved an easy lesson to impart. Turns out, all it requires is a limitless supply of gall and the inherent belief that people are dumber than a bag of hammers.
And all it costs us is language, the ability to have reasoned and intelligent political discourse, the
idea that words do, and should, have weight, dimension and intrinsic meaning. Maybe you disagree. In which case, let me just say this:
Piffle crack eat monkey snow. Really.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Write to him at lpitts@miamiherald.com.
pulled from the Detroit Free Press www.freep.com
Monday, September 08, 2008
Yet another point about how wrong the GOP is about the 4-letter-word MEDIA
IS OBAMA ALREADY PRESIDENT?
Mon Sep 8, 10:01 AM ET
by Richard Reeves
NEW YORK -- As a member of the Elite Eastern Media in good standing (I hope), I would like to say that St. Paul was the most educational and enjoyable Republican National Convention I have ever watched. Thrilling, really. I did not know that we, the people like me, were running the country until hearing it from John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and the rest of that wonderful bunch from real America.
This is just great, I thought again and again. My favorite revelation was Romney's declaration that the Supreme Court was "liberal." And I was delighted to hear Sen. McCain described as: "A restless reformer who will clean up Washington ... (and will) drain that swamp." Wow! You really have to pay attention these days, what with things changing so fast.
Romney was a hoot. My favorite. He must hate the media more than most of those who were in
St. Paul, because he spoke as if he has not read or noticed anything for years. It is hard to believe he said:
"Is Washington now liberal or conservative? Let me ask you some questions. ... Is a Congress liberal or conservative that stops nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more and more dependent on Middle Eastern tyrants? It's liberal. Is government spending, putting aside inflation, liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? It's liberal. ... Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. ... You know, it's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother."
The big-government liberals he's apparently worried about are the reigning Big Brother, Vice President Cheney, and the reigning borrow-and-spend budget-busting president, whom I had been thinking was named Bush.
Maybe it was me who got it wrong. I must admit that I was sorry to hear that this president -- Barack Obama, is it? -- is screwing up so bad, fighting wars and building bridges to nowhere and presiding over a tailspinning economy. You know, until McCain and the rest told me, I didn't even realize Obama was in charge the whole time. Pay attention!
Oops! This just in: George W. Bush is still president and has been for more than seven distressing years. I guess I was fooled by the fact that his name was almost never mentioned in St. Paul. A computer count indicated that Bush's name was used 12 times as often at the Democratic convention in Denver than in St. Paul -- but you know the Eastern Elite Media, they probably made that up.
And, darn, the papers said McCain has been in Congress for more than 25 years. His party, the Republicans, have controlled the White House or Congress or both since 1980. That did make me wonder a bit why McCain said, "We're worse off than we were four years ago." And then he added: "I promise you, if you're sick and tired of the way Washington operates, you only need to be patient for a couple of more months. Change is coming! Change is coming! Change is coming!"
Maybe he really does think Obama is now and has been for four years our president.
No, he must know Bush is still in office. Why else would he and Gov. Palin, the sparky leader of that expensive federal preserve called Alaska, declare victory in Iraq? Some victory. McCain said triumph was a result of his personal resolve and the surge led by "the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus." Petraeus is one smart and admirable guy, but his timing is not always perfect. Just before McCain spoke, it was revealed that the general has recommended to the president (Bush) that sharp troop cuts trumpeted by the Republicans should be postponed until next year.
But, of course, McCain has already said we may be there for a hundred years. He may be right.
The conventions were fun and games and a bit of fantasy this time around. But except for introducing the country to Gov. Palin of the Yukon, "Caribou Barbie" to the bloggers, I doubt these rock concerts did much beyond holding the contenders in place. This race will still be about Bush's record, Obama's race and McCain's age.
Mon Sep 8, 10:01 AM ET
by Richard Reeves
NEW YORK -- As a member of the Elite Eastern Media in good standing (I hope), I would like to say that St. Paul was the most educational and enjoyable Republican National Convention I have ever watched. Thrilling, really. I did not know that we, the people like me, were running the country until hearing it from John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and the rest of that wonderful bunch from real America.
This is just great, I thought again and again. My favorite revelation was Romney's declaration that the Supreme Court was "liberal." And I was delighted to hear Sen. McCain described as: "A restless reformer who will clean up Washington ... (and will) drain that swamp." Wow! You really have to pay attention these days, what with things changing so fast.
Romney was a hoot. My favorite. He must hate the media more than most of those who were in
St. Paul, because he spoke as if he has not read or noticed anything for years. It is hard to believe he said:
"Is Washington now liberal or conservative? Let me ask you some questions. ... Is a Congress liberal or conservative that stops nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more and more dependent on Middle Eastern tyrants? It's liberal. Is government spending, putting aside inflation, liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? It's liberal. ... Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. ... You know, it's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother."
The big-government liberals he's apparently worried about are the reigning Big Brother, Vice President Cheney, and the reigning borrow-and-spend budget-busting president, whom I had been thinking was named Bush.
Maybe it was me who got it wrong. I must admit that I was sorry to hear that this president -- Barack Obama, is it? -- is screwing up so bad, fighting wars and building bridges to nowhere and presiding over a tailspinning economy. You know, until McCain and the rest told me, I didn't even realize Obama was in charge the whole time. Pay attention!
Oops! This just in: George W. Bush is still president and has been for more than seven distressing years. I guess I was fooled by the fact that his name was almost never mentioned in St. Paul. A computer count indicated that Bush's name was used 12 times as often at the Democratic convention in Denver than in St. Paul -- but you know the Eastern Elite Media, they probably made that up.
And, darn, the papers said McCain has been in Congress for more than 25 years. His party, the Republicans, have controlled the White House or Congress or both since 1980. That did make me wonder a bit why McCain said, "We're worse off than we were four years ago." And then he added: "I promise you, if you're sick and tired of the way Washington operates, you only need to be patient for a couple of more months. Change is coming! Change is coming! Change is coming!"
Maybe he really does think Obama is now and has been for four years our president.
No, he must know Bush is still in office. Why else would he and Gov. Palin, the sparky leader of that expensive federal preserve called Alaska, declare victory in Iraq? Some victory. McCain said triumph was a result of his personal resolve and the surge led by "the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus." Petraeus is one smart and admirable guy, but his timing is not always perfect. Just before McCain spoke, it was revealed that the general has recommended to the president (Bush) that sharp troop cuts trumpeted by the Republicans should be postponed until next year.
But, of course, McCain has already said we may be there for a hundred years. He may be right.
The conventions were fun and games and a bit of fantasy this time around. But except for introducing the country to Gov. Palin of the Yukon, "Caribou Barbie" to the bloggers, I doubt these rock concerts did much beyond holding the contenders in place. This race will still be about Bush's record, Obama's race and McCain's age.
Palin's a stupid-glasses-wearing little liar.
Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere
Mon Sep 8, 2:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A new ad from John McCain's presidential campaign contends his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." In fact, Palin was for the infamous bridge before she was against it
THE SPIN: Called "Original Mavericks," the ad asserts the Republican senator has fought pork-barrel spending, the drug industry and fellow Republicans, reforming Washington in the process, and credits Palin with similarly changing Alaska by taking on the oil industry, challenging her own party and ditching the bridge project that became a national symbol of wasteful spending.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton came back with fighting words. "Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere," he said.
Burton said McCain would merely carry on supporting President Bush's economic, health, education, energy and foreign policies, and that means "anything but change."
THE FACTS: Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor.
McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state.
"I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere," she said in her convention speech last week.
That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money.
"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said then.
Palin indicated during her 2006 campaign for governor that she supported the bridge, but was wishy-washy about it. She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done."
She vowed to defend Southeast Alaska "when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative" — something that McCain was busy doing at the time, as a fierce critic of the bridge.
Even so, she called the bridge design "grandiose" during her campaign and said something more modest might be appropriate.
Palin's reputation for standing up to entrenched interests in Alaska is genuine. Her self-description as a leader who "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress" is harder to square with the facts.
The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.
___
By Calvin Woodward.
Mon Sep 8, 2:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A new ad from John McCain's presidential campaign contends his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." In fact, Palin was for the infamous bridge before she was against it
THE SPIN: Called "Original Mavericks," the ad asserts the Republican senator has fought pork-barrel spending, the drug industry and fellow Republicans, reforming Washington in the process, and credits Palin with similarly changing Alaska by taking on the oil industry, challenging her own party and ditching the bridge project that became a national symbol of wasteful spending.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton came back with fighting words. "Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere," he said.
Burton said McCain would merely carry on supporting President Bush's economic, health, education, energy and foreign policies, and that means "anything but change."
THE FACTS: Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor.
McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state.
"I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere," she said in her convention speech last week.
That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money.
"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said then.
Palin indicated during her 2006 campaign for governor that she supported the bridge, but was wishy-washy about it. She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done."
She vowed to defend Southeast Alaska "when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative" — something that McCain was busy doing at the time, as a fierce critic of the bridge.
Even so, she called the bridge design "grandiose" during her campaign and said something more modest might be appropriate.
Palin's reputation for standing up to entrenched interests in Alaska is genuine. Her self-description as a leader who "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress" is harder to square with the facts.
The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.
___
By Calvin Woodward.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Dangerous Distortions
If I hear another talking head complain about “Liberal Left Wing Media” I swear to God somebody is going to get punched in the face. Let’s call a spade a spade here, conservatives, SOMETIMES YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THINGS, AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU.
Let’s talk about bias for a minute here. Everyone has a bias. Everyone’s position on everything is biased to some degree. We can try to be as objective as possible, but our biases show through. That’s a fact.
The conservatives complain about the media’s left wing bias, and while I’m not arguing that it does not exist, it’s not like it’s a huge leftward slant. True, the editorial board of the New York Times and Detroit Free Press may have liberal tendencies. Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews (and, well most of MSNBC for that matter) might chastise a Republican now and then. And it is fair for Conservatives to call those organizations out on a bias. But then, why is there no outcry about Fox News? Its entire political team is made up of Republicans (like Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Pat Buchanon), and Conservative mouth-pieces (like Ben Stein). Bill O’Reilly might claim to be a “No Spin Zone,” but that may be because his wheels are firmly entrenched on the right side of the road. Fox News is overtly right-wing, as is talk radio.
Ever listen to AM radio? My guess is, unless you like sports or Conservative radio shows, you haven’t. That’s because the overwhelming majority of AM talk shows are right wing. The highest rated shows: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O’Reilly, Laura Schlesinger, all tools of the Right Wing Machine. I hear no complaints about them. Even local radio, in one of the most left-wing cities in the country is non-Liberal. WJR’s Frank Beckman? WRIF’s (Drew-less) Mike in the Morning and Arthur Penhollow? WCSX’s Morning Crew? Dick Purton’s gang? Remember talk-radio everyman Gregg Henson? Even brainless Blaine from the 96.3 morning show? All non-Liberal. But there are no complaints about their bias.
Nor do I hear complaints about conservative-leaning papers, like the Wall Street Journal or the Detroit News.
Nowhere is their talk about ABC’s John Stossel, a vocal Libertarian. Nowhere is mentioned NBC’s Tom Brokaw, who grew up in rural, conservative South Dakota. Nowhere is mentioned the commonly held belief among journalists that the media should only be observers, and probably shouldn’t even vote to maintain objectivity.
The 1st amendment gives us, the People, the right to freedom of speech, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government. The media is our mouthpiece for that. They were just as hard, if not harder, on Clinton as they were on Bush. Reporters for Time went to jail to protect their inside source, White House insider Karl Rove…I mean…Scooter Libby.
I’m not here saying that attention between both sides is split evenly down the middle. There’s no way I could study that, and I’m sure I wouldn’t want to if I could, but it’s not like the entire Media hates the Republican Party. The media will be just as cynical about President Obama as they would be President McCain. They are there to report the news, not distort it, no matter what the conservatives say
What conservatives are doing is calling in to question the validity of journalism as a profession. They are undermining the concept of “factual journalism” by suggesting that news stories are more “opinions” or “editorials,” chock full of the journalist’s “agenda.” The more people they can get to believe this, the less effective journalism and the media become.
Why is this dangerous? The media is one of the few non-government objective, central outlets for information that we have. Completely free of state control (except the FCC, which is a separate issue altogether), the media are free to investigate and report however they want. If the media continue to be scrutinized and shunned, what will be left will be a shell of its former self. Imagine, NBC, wanting to stay relevant twenty years from now, becoming yet another mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Imagine a media where there is no question of government activity, no investigations, no exposés, in short, no check on government power. That is not a free media that is what exists in Communist China.
The media isn’t perfect; reporters are human and obviously have their own pre-conceived dispositions. But to instantly shun the media as “left wing Liberal” without even hearing the message or gathering facts is something that leads us ever closer to a totalitarian fascist state.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The truth about Republican lies (from Yahoo)
Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 3, 11:48 pm ET
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
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.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 3, 11:48 pm ET
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
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.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
Sarah Palin is hilarious[ly uncompetent]
Here is a gem from last night’s speech by Vice Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin: “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit-bull? Lipstick.”
Oh, that was funny, oh my God. I’ve never laughed so hard in my life. Hold on, I think I need to go to the hospital and get stitches, because my sides are splitting.
In her speech last night, she outlined her ticket’s plan for the future…uh…wait while I flip through my notes…pit-bull lipstick…uh…inexperienced Obama…uh…happy family…why didn’t I write anything down about this? Oh that’s right, she didn’t mention a damn thing! Her entire speech was about 1) how great her life is, 2) what a piece of crap Obama and Biden are, and 3) how McCain is God’s gift to America. Nowhere did she outline economic policies. Nowhere did she mention foreign policy (except to say that McCain “wouldn’t run away from a fight.”) Nowhere did she say anything, except to copy Obama’s plan for energy independence, and then slam Obama for not having a plan (to which I said, “Hey, isn’t that Obama’s plan?”)
Ms. Palin is a great speaker, a spunky attack dog. She will be good at rallying the conservative troops, and may be attractive to some people. Personally, I’m looking forward to the VP Debate; where Biden will rip her to shreds and, I hope, make her cry.
John McCain, well probably not so much him, but the Republican Party thinks that you are stupid, America, especially if you are a woman. Still angry about the failed Hillary campaign? Well here’s Sarah Palin, she too has a uterus! And that’s apparently all you vote for, someone with the same internal organs as you!
Seriously, without getting into a debate about experience (which is totally irrelevant by the way, John McCain and Barack Obama have the SAME AMOUNT of executive experience…none…) this has got to be the worst ticket since…well…I can’t even think of a worse ticket.
Sarah Palin of course comes to us from Alaska, a state of slightly over 500,000 people. Ms. Palin is the governor of that state, and boasts an impressive 80% approval rating. But then again, it is Alaska, where the vast majority of registered voters are Republicans, and that means that she has about 400,000 supporters. Jennifer Granholm has a bigger support base. Hell, as of this morning, 30% of Detroiters still supported Kwame Kilpatrick. That equals out to almost 300,000 people. That’s right; Sarah Palin has just a tad bit more support than does our felonious Mayor.
It’s also not hard to find support in a state that reaps tremendous benefits and tons of cash due to oil. Alaska is the only state in the union in which every citizen gets a kickback. Yeah, I’d be happy there too. Not to mention, the extreme gas prices we’ve been paying has been going in small part straight into the coffers of the State of Alaska. The state is awash in oil money. No wonder people think things are good in Alaska.
Sarah Palin’s a maverick, you say? Sarah Palin doesn’t like wasteful spending or big government? She was against the “Bridge to Nowhere.” But the thing was, see, she was actually for the bridge to nowhere, until Congress told her administration that the State of Alaska would have to come up with some of the funds. Then, all of a sudden, she changed her mind.
Sarah Palin was a cunning move by John McCain, and I think this will be the final nail in his coffin.
However, we need to remember that John McCain is now 72 years old. He’s a cancer survivor. Statistically speaking, he should be dead already. We could legitimately looking at the possibility of a President Palin at any moment. President Palin, who only got a passport less than a year ago. Seriously, could you picture a President Palin?
Palin: Hi, Vladimir Putin? It’s Sarah Palin.
Vladamir Putin: Who?
SP: You know, President of the United States.
Putin: Oh right, the pit-bull with lipstick…I remember. Are you still selling candy for that hockey team fundraiser?
SP: Uh, no, I don’t do that anymore. I needed to talk about this whole Georgia thing, listen, I know you guys like peaches and Atlanta Braves baseball, but you really shouldn’t be invading…
Putin: What are you talking about?
SP: You invaded Georgia! And I got to tell you, we will not stand for this! The American people do not like this kind of aggression, and we will fight back! I don’t care if you want a Savannah beach house!
Putin: Um…we invaded THE COUNTRY of Georgia. Not your state.
SP: Wait, there’s a country called “Georgia” too?
Putin: Yeah. Shouldn’t you know these things?
SP: I’ve actually never even been to Canada before…so…
Putin: Weren’t you the governor of Alaska?
SP: Yeah…so what?
Putin: (laughs) Nothing. I tell you what, put me down for three boxes of Reese’s Pieces, and I’ll see you at the G8 Summit, okay?
SP: G8…oh, that’s the cable channel about video games, right?
Putin: Uh…no…that’s…oh never mind.
Oh, that was funny, oh my God. I’ve never laughed so hard in my life. Hold on, I think I need to go to the hospital and get stitches, because my sides are splitting.
In her speech last night, she outlined her ticket’s plan for the future…uh…wait while I flip through my notes…pit-bull lipstick…uh…inexperienced Obama…uh…happy family…why didn’t I write anything down about this? Oh that’s right, she didn’t mention a damn thing! Her entire speech was about 1) how great her life is, 2) what a piece of crap Obama and Biden are, and 3) how McCain is God’s gift to America. Nowhere did she outline economic policies. Nowhere did she mention foreign policy (except to say that McCain “wouldn’t run away from a fight.”) Nowhere did she say anything, except to copy Obama’s plan for energy independence, and then slam Obama for not having a plan (to which I said, “Hey, isn’t that Obama’s plan?”)
Ms. Palin is a great speaker, a spunky attack dog. She will be good at rallying the conservative troops, and may be attractive to some people. Personally, I’m looking forward to the VP Debate; where Biden will rip her to shreds and, I hope, make her cry.
John McCain, well probably not so much him, but the Republican Party thinks that you are stupid, America, especially if you are a woman. Still angry about the failed Hillary campaign? Well here’s Sarah Palin, she too has a uterus! And that’s apparently all you vote for, someone with the same internal organs as you!
Seriously, without getting into a debate about experience (which is totally irrelevant by the way, John McCain and Barack Obama have the SAME AMOUNT of executive experience…none…) this has got to be the worst ticket since…well…I can’t even think of a worse ticket.
Sarah Palin of course comes to us from Alaska, a state of slightly over 500,000 people. Ms. Palin is the governor of that state, and boasts an impressive 80% approval rating. But then again, it is Alaska, where the vast majority of registered voters are Republicans, and that means that she has about 400,000 supporters. Jennifer Granholm has a bigger support base. Hell, as of this morning, 30% of Detroiters still supported Kwame Kilpatrick. That equals out to almost 300,000 people. That’s right; Sarah Palin has just a tad bit more support than does our felonious Mayor.
It’s also not hard to find support in a state that reaps tremendous benefits and tons of cash due to oil. Alaska is the only state in the union in which every citizen gets a kickback. Yeah, I’d be happy there too. Not to mention, the extreme gas prices we’ve been paying has been going in small part straight into the coffers of the State of Alaska. The state is awash in oil money. No wonder people think things are good in Alaska.
Sarah Palin’s a maverick, you say? Sarah Palin doesn’t like wasteful spending or big government? She was against the “Bridge to Nowhere.” But the thing was, see, she was actually for the bridge to nowhere, until Congress told her administration that the State of Alaska would have to come up with some of the funds. Then, all of a sudden, she changed her mind.
Sarah Palin was a cunning move by John McCain, and I think this will be the final nail in his coffin.
However, we need to remember that John McCain is now 72 years old. He’s a cancer survivor. Statistically speaking, he should be dead already. We could legitimately looking at the possibility of a President Palin at any moment. President Palin, who only got a passport less than a year ago. Seriously, could you picture a President Palin?
Palin: Hi, Vladimir Putin? It’s Sarah Palin.
Vladamir Putin: Who?
SP: You know, President of the United States.
Putin: Oh right, the pit-bull with lipstick…I remember. Are you still selling candy for that hockey team fundraiser?
SP: Uh, no, I don’t do that anymore. I needed to talk about this whole Georgia thing, listen, I know you guys like peaches and Atlanta Braves baseball, but you really shouldn’t be invading…
Putin: What are you talking about?
SP: You invaded Georgia! And I got to tell you, we will not stand for this! The American people do not like this kind of aggression, and we will fight back! I don’t care if you want a Savannah beach house!
Putin: Um…we invaded THE COUNTRY of Georgia. Not your state.
SP: Wait, there’s a country called “Georgia” too?
Putin: Yeah. Shouldn’t you know these things?
SP: I’ve actually never even been to Canada before…so…
Putin: Weren’t you the governor of Alaska?
SP: Yeah…so what?
Putin: (laughs) Nothing. I tell you what, put me down for three boxes of Reese’s Pieces, and I’ll see you at the G8 Summit, okay?
SP: G8…oh, that’s the cable channel about video games, right?
Putin: Uh…no…that’s…oh never mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
