This is McInsane! Yeah Baby... put in that call to Austin Powers.
And here is something else just to make you think, for a bit of fun:
Is it the chin or the eyes? Or is it that nose?
I found this graphic at Information Security Place and updated to this election. I had thought of the same thing recently after watching the RNC and seeing Traitor Joe's speech in support of McSame. He showed more fire in that one speech than he displayed in the entire 2000 campaign as Al Gore's running mate. So what's up with that?
***********
***********
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
McCain seems to lose control of his temper when he feels he has lost control of a situation. He gets angry at the press when he thinks they have "crossed" him in any way. What really seems to make him angry is when the press or any one else points to a matter of truth that is not in line with his own created reality. To make it worse, the press seems to have a long term memory and can remember every version of John McCain. And now with the advent of the Internet and online videos which Senator McCain must have not yet discovered, the entire world has a long term memory. Even in the recent debate McCain showed his tendency for extremes when asked what should be done in response to the almost one trillion dollar financial industry bail out. His response, "How about a total freeze on government spending." As Barack Obama quickly pointed out, this is like taking a sledge hammer to a problem that needs the precision of a scalpel.
Watch what happens when McCain encounters a reporter that he is not happy with. Keep an eye on South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham standing next to McCain and the look of surprise on his face which tells it all.: *** McCain Disses Wall Street Journal
***
McCain Irked by Press Coverage of Obama John McCain turns a cold shoulder to the reporter who did a story on his campaign's ire about Obama coverage. If this is his way of using diplomacy our international affairs are doomed.
"It used to be the stories were 'everyone was in love with McCain -- he's on his bus, he schmoozes the reporters, they all give him a break,'" said Paul Friedman, senior vice president for news coverage at CBS. "That's the irony. These guys are now crying foul, and they've had the advantage of terrific relationships with the press."
It seems he keeps re-inventing himself in his attempt to make it to the White House, but now no one seems sure which John McCain we are dealing with. Just where has the Straight Talk express taken us? "McCain, who built his image on bipartisanship, is now finding he can only rally Republicans by campaigning as a Deep Red partisan. That conflict -- between his sense of self and the role he's playing to win the election -- may account for the fact that he's been melting down like HAL 9000 lately. The old McCain would never have threatened to cancel a debate, or run an ad comparing his opponent to Britney Spears. But the old McCain never won the Republican nomination." Read more: Who is the real John McCain?
McCain version 2000: Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign. MCCAIN: “Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore. … The political tactics of division and slander are not our values… They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country. Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks, Virginia Beach, VA, 2/28/00)
McCain version 2008 selects James Dobson's vetted candidate Sarah Palin and gladly accepts endorsements from John Hagey and Rod Parsley only to later reject them when the press reveals how radically right these pastors are as well as being extremely intolerant.
Even long-time friends worry about his temper. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Senator John McCain for more than three decades, had this to say when he gave his endorsement to Romney in January of 2008: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Cochran changed his mind and "fell in line" with the party and later endorsed McCain. But even staunch conservative Pat Buchanan expressed fears of a McCain presidency. On the "Morning Joe," Pat Buchanan made the very salient point that John McCain is giving us the ultimate straight talk, promising more wars ahead ... and we would be at war with Iran shortly after he would be inaugurated president.
Others who know him say they would never want to see him near a gun. So how close should he be to the "red" button with the ability to launch missiles around the world??? When he launch "now" and ask for forgiveness later? Think about it.
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
*** McCain Suspends Campaign - Obama holds fast on Debate
***
*** Craig Ferguson comments on suspended campaign
*** McCain suspends first day of RNC before Gustav hits
***
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
Listen closely. McCain says "Horse Sh**" about not meeting with Spain. (And you can hear the same thing in the above video if you start listening at 1:10:54.)
*** The Truth about the Surge
***
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
Is Sarah Palin Qualified to be one heart beat away from the Oval Office?
I have included both installments of the Palin interview with Katie Couric in this post along with the Saturday Night Live spoof and some additional commentary. You have to see this to believe it. But first I offer a bit of my own commentary.
My first response to John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was that he was making a grab for Hillary Clinton supporters. I soon revised my thinking and began to see that his choice of Governor Palin was a desperate attempt to keep the Republican Convention from blowing up and to shore up the radically right pro-life conservative base that he feels he needs to win the prize of POTUS. No woman who supported Hillary Clinton and all that Senator Clinton stands for would be able to in good conscience transfer support to McCain based on the addition of Sarah Palin. John McCain's first choice for a running mate was Joe Lieberman. His radically right base threatened to walk off the convention floor if any one but a pro-life candidate was announced. Lieberman with his years of experience was dumped. McCain wistfully played with the idea of Tom Ridge, but in the end had to let go of a very qualified pick. Kay Baily Hutchinson who is ranked in the top most powerful women in America and could have brought over some of the Hillary vote was nixed because she was not pro-life. If I could have picked for McCain, I would have suggested Condoleezza Rice but he didn't look my way.
McCain has exposed his ambition and desperation with the choice of Sarah Palin. He wants to be POTUS so badly that he will do anything to achieve victory, even selecting a running mate with no qualifications. McCain shows no concern for America and "even the rest of the world also in the globalization in which we are a part of also even..." in the words of Governor Palin.
Why? Why did he make this choice? John McCain felt he had to, above all else, appease the radically right pro-life constituency. The Family Research Council and James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Phylis Schaffly all applaud the choice of Sarah Palin. These individuals and their followers have no concern that Governor Palin is not qualified to serve as President of the United States. Their only requirement of a candidate is that they are pro-life. This is the same mode of operation that filled our congress and senate with unqualified Republicans and elected George W. Bush to lead them. This is the thinking that produced the past eight years of unqualified leadership that has resulted in a war that is failing, runaway spending, a decline in our economy, a broken health care system, a failed education system, enmity towards the U.S. from the rest of the world and the mortgage debacle for which Congress will now turn to the America public for a trillion-dollar bail out.
John McCain claims the slogan, "America First" and "Country First" but in reality his actions show that it is all about John McCain's own ambition. If McCain continues to decline in the polls will he throw Sarah under the bus as his "fall-girl?" People are already starting to wonder.
Who is most qualified to serve as president? Is it John McCain or Barack Obama? I am not sure either is totally qualified but I will put my bets on the guy that graduated magna cum laud from Harvard Law School over the guy that graduated sixth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.
*** DAY ONE
*** DAY TWO
*** Chuck Todd of NBC comments on Russia and Foreign Policy Experience
*** Jack Cafferty, "Why Sarah Palin should scare the hell out of you."
What viewers had to say: Cafferty File *** As spoofed by Saturday Night Live
*** Analysis from T.Y.T
Should Palin step down? Speculation before the convention: Huffington Post comments before the RNC. Would dumping Palin be an Eagleton mistake? The British betting houses dropped the odds.
More recently: Prominent conservative commentator suggests Palin should step down. McCain staff feeling desperate after mock debates with Palin prove disastrous. GOP Concerns grow: Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.” The UK Independent says the Cringe Meter if off the dial. And in Alaska, some are calling for both McCain and Palin to resign.
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
Click "play" to view the interview with the creators of Obama Waffles and hear their "defense" of this very offensive product. They pause and look a bit guilty when the interviewer asks if they realize that Obama has been a long-standing member of the Church of Christ while their product paints Obama as a Muslim. Of course they surely don't believe or imply that Muslims are terrorists. And I bet they would defend the right of any American Muslim to worship freely. Just as they certainly don't believe that all US citizens of Mexican descent are illegal aliens. ...
Lou Dobbs loved the spoof on Senator Obama and bought a box of "Obama Waffles" at a vendor booth stationed at the Values Voter Summit this weekend. Reportedly he said, "My wife will love this!" as he posed for a snapshot. This image was posted on the ObamaWaffles.com website but has already been purged. UPDATE: Bob DeMoss says now, not really, Lou Dobbs didn't really endorse Obama Waffles. Whose waffling now? Bob says he handed Lou the box and then posed for a picture with him, but Lou didn't buy the box. But Bob admits he had the picture on the website blog but took it down because he didn't actually ask Lou Dobbs for permission.
So...let's see, did he ask Barack Obama permission to use his image? Or Michelle? Or John Kerry? So why wasn't the picture of Lou just considered political satire? Call it satire and comedy and I guess you can spew your message and call it a right of free speech. But when you sell a product at a convention, the convention has the right to boot you if you prove to be offensive. Do two rights make a wrong? I guess they did when they created Obama Waffles.
According to AP reporter, Joan Lowy, Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material." The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon.
Looking into the gentlemen a bit more, I ended up fixating on Bob DeMoss, the swea...the one with the awful...the one on the left. Bob, you see, isn’t just a “freelance writer”. He’s written a series of Christian teen literature with Tim LaHaye. Yes, Left Behind Tim LaHaye. Meaning, of course, that this wasn’t just some guy shilling his flash-in-a-pan election year product, but he’s a full-on foot soldier who has the full faith and credit of the fundamentalist movement.
Just what is the Values Voter Summit? It was a conference held by the FRCAction the legislative action arm of the Family Research Council this week starting Thursday, September 12th ending today, Sunday the 14th.
This was their appeal to churches:
You may be asking yourself just what is this War on Judeo-Christian values? Is there a war against the church in America?
David Limbaugh, the younger brother of Rush Limbaugh sure thinks there is and he has a form on his website where you can report your personal experiences in this war.
There are some grounds for this thought. Let's look back in history a bit to 1960. Madelyn Murry O'hair launched a lawsuit Murray v. Curlett which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling and ended the practice of daily prayer in American public schools. O'Hair later founded American Atheists and became so controversial that, in 1964, Life magazine referred to her as "the most hated woman in America." (Wikipedia)
This ushered in a time in America when every public institution felt a litigious fear of prayer, public displays of the Ten Commandments and Nativity scenes and even the public recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag which contains the phrase, One nation, Under God.
This led to the establishment of fundamentalist Christian schools across our nation where parents could be assured that their children could pray in school. However if their children wanted accredited high school diplomas, many states required that evolution be included in the study of science. This was a direct affront to the creationist belief in the origin of life. The home school movement thus grew leaps and bounds where parents had almost complete control of their children's curriculum.
With the politicization of fundamental Christians and their rise in the Republican party along with Christian schooled and Home-schooled students now proving their access to higher education, one would think that the vision of a War on Christianity would subside. As long as Roe v. Wade is in effect the war will be waged. And as long as Gay and Lesbian Americans seek to be included in the legal definition of marriage, the war will be waged. As long as the so-called "Liberal" media or what is now more commonly called the MSM (main stream media) provides content that does not support and endorse a Christian values life style, the war will go on.
"We are not coming up against just human beings to beat them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare." (Pat Robertson at a 1994 Christian Coalition national strategy conference)
The question is really who is waging this war? A case could be made that the Religious Right has understood the Bush Doctrine all along and maybe they were the progenitors of it. For it would seem to many that they are preemptively waging a war to defend their fundamentalist view of Christianity. One must assume that the Family Research Council motto, Defending Faith, Family and Freedom is more than just deft alliteration. It is a commission. But is it also a statement of reconstructionism?
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. - Frank Schaeffer
They allowed a vendor to sell a product that included racial slurs and defamed the Muslim religion so we have to ask what they mean by defending Faith. It could not mean the faith of all Americans. And when they talk about Family of course, that would not include the family as lived out by all Americans. And then we get to Freedom. Do they defend the freedoms as described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
The Obama Waffles is just one hand grenade in the War. And they are running a Sarah Palin special, buy two get one free for just $19.98. This is supposed to emulate the type of frugality Sarah would bring to the White House.
The bottom line, as the old adage goes, "follow the money." Who benefits monetarily from the War on Christian Values? It creates great fund raising opportunities for any and all organizations involved. And the right wing movement has discovered that although both are filthy, Politics and Money are like two peas in a pod. Not to mention all the books that are written by right wing "pundits" making them rich, rich, rich. Yes, war can be good business.
###
Last week, while the media focused almost obsessively on the DNC's spectacle in Denver, the country's most influential conservatives met quietly at a hotel in downtown Minneapolis to get to know Sarah Palin. The assembled were members of the Council for National Policy, an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy. - (firedoglake: James Dobson picked Palin)
Statement issued by FRCAction:
Well this is refreshing...the following statement was issued by the FRCAction organization after they were alerted to the offensive nature of the Obama Waffles packaging. Vendors have to apply for a space at the convention, but either the convention organizers previewed the material and didn't perceive the negative implications or took the vendors at their word that it was satire and all in fun and didn't take the time to view the product.
We strongly condemn the tone and content of materials that were exhibited by one of the vendors at this weekend's Values Voter Summit. The materials represent an attempt at parody that crosses the line into coarseness and bias.
The exhibitor contacted our reviewer just days before the Summit by email and described material that sounded like it was devoted to political flip-flops on policy issues. When the content of the materials was brought to the attention of FRC Action senior officials today, they were removed and the exhibit was dismantled by the vendor at our insistence. It is our responsibility to fully vet materials that are offered at any event we cosponsor, but we are deeply dismayed that this vendor violated the spirit, message and tone of our event in such an offensive manner.
The Values Voter Summit represents a coming together of many long-established organizations that work across denominational and ethnic lines to celebrate and promote the family and a culture of life. We reject any communications that divide and distract us and frustrate these principles. Bishop Harry Jackson's High Impact Leadership Coalition, Gary Bauer's American Values, and Alliance Defense Fund join us in rejecting this material.
What was the response of the creators of Obama Waffles? Typical.
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
Both women are accomplished and I dare say would credit their education as an important factor in their career success.
A woman caller commented about the educational background of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and asked, "Shouldn't voters be concerned about the education of the candidates?". In response, Mona Charen called the woman a snob just like so many democratic women who are snobs.
This comment is right in line with the reactive conservative media and the McCain campaign's mode of deflecting issues by using pejorative comments about anyone bringing up an issue. McCain and his supporters never honestly discuss issues, they use grade-school tactics of name calling. How disrespectful! (to quote a recent McCain ad). This is very disrespectful of the American public. We deserve a real discussion of the issues.
Reviewer Daniel L Edelenher had this to say of Charen's book, Do Gooders.
Charen is a capable writer, but she seems really forced in spots here, especially when she's trying to channel Ann Coulter. But Coulter she is not; her attempts at being arch fall flat and she repeatedly writes with trepidation, as if she knows she can't be as funny or quick with a knife to the belly like Coulter can.
Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno has written this in regards to the term "useful idiots" used by Charen (Wikipedia):
Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today.
Reviewer Jeremy Grasso had this to say of the Cheran book, Useful Idiots:
It's rhetorically exciting to denounce all liberals everywhere - and even fun - but it's not in the service of a good argument that could hold up for liberal readers, for instance. The point, it would seem, would be to write a book that can excite neocons, so to speak, while provoking mute reaction in the left wing - because, as it is, this book is very easy to disagree with, and very easy to pick apart. It may be refreshing to read, but it is, fundamentally, a rant. You can't win any arguments with this book; you can only lose them.
Palin Education Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.
Sarah Palin was enrolled in five colleges in six years. I suppose you could say this gives her a unique perspective on higher education and you could put that in her "experience" column.
McCain Education John McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy near the bottom of his class in 1958, his low class rank attributed to indifference both to disciplinary rules and to academic subjects he did not enjoy. Encyclopedia Britannica
Biden Education Joe Biden graduated with a double major in history and political science in 1965, ranked 506th of 688 in his class. He went on to receive his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968, where by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students. He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969. Wikipedia
Obama Education Barack Obama received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University (1983) and a law degree from Harvard University (1991), where he was the first African American to serve as president of the Harvard Law Review. Encyclopedia Britannica
Barack Obama studied at Occidental College for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983. Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition. In his second year he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors. Obama's election in February 1990 as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles. He graduated with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991. Wikipedia What Barack Obama did in the years between graduating from Columbia University and entering Harvard Law School. Barack Obama worked for a year at the Business International Corporation and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.
After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side. During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens. Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute. In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks then Kenya for five weeks where he met many of his Kenyan relatives for the first time.
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
One small step back for a woman and one giant leap backwards for womankind. I preface my commentary by reminding my readers that the McCain/Palin campaign hand-picked ABC's Charlie Gibson for this exclusive and much anticipated interview with Sarah Palin. John McCain said that Sarah Palin would not be interviewed unless the press would handle her with deference and respect. Charlie Gibson did just that and with more grace than I have seen of anyone in the press. Compare this to the lively interviews recently held by Bill O'Reilly with Barack Obama.
The stark contrast of the Sarah Palin interview broadcast over the backdrop of the 7th anniversary of 9/11 is mind blowing. I am in shock at the potential of someone so unqualified being elected to the second highest office in the United States of America. In a world that is increasingly dangerous surely the US would not chance putting the reigns of the most powerful seat of rule into the hands of someone who could not succeed in a middle school government class?
I thought that the McCain campaign was grandstanding by keeping Governor Palin out of the press. I figured they were setting the stage by priming the pump and that we would all be surprised at how articulately and intelligently she would handle herself. But the other option proved to be the case. McCain knew she was not ready for the public stage. Sixty days is not enough time for McCain to pull of a Pygmalionesque feat of creating a world leader out of an Alaskan valley girl. "My Fair Lady" was a sweet movie, but we cannot afford to be so nostalgic as to view Sarah as McCain's Eliza Doolittle. And remember, Eliza inevitably rejected the coaching of this kindly professor.
The ABC website is exploding with commentary from viewers. Some are trying to put the blame on Charlie Gibson. They say he was rude and condescending. To me, he looked like a kindly tutor who was giving her obvious questions, gently couching them in such a way that he hoped she would pull off the right answer. Even when she was struggling he repeated questions leadingly to help her understand what he was asking. It was painful to watch and I believe it was more painful for Charlie than it even was for Governor Palin.
Charlie's questions dealt with the most basic information about world affairs that anyone could glean from an afternoon of listening to NPR and BBC news. This was the softball interview that should have buffeted public confidence in the McCain/Palin ticket.
Palin was not the only woman considered for the Republican ticket. McCain could have better distinguished his campaign by picking a woman tried and true such as Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is considered one of the 30 most powerful women in America. She has the experience and qualifications to lead. However, her one disqualification for McCain's base is that she is not in favor of outlawing abortion. McCain made a strategic choice in picking Palin who would energize his pro-life conservative base and create a media splash to strengthen his polling numbers. He was not showing concern for the long-term consequences of serving with Governor Palin if he should win the election. He has proven once again, he will do anything to win this election - even pick a single-issue candidate that is totally unqualified to serve in the office for which she is running and worse yet , a security threat if the worst should happen to him and she had to take the reigns of government.
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
I believe we need inspired, insightful, intelligent and hopeful leadership. I believe that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the leadership team that can take us into a future of strength and hope.
The Obama campaign has been the team of substance and relevance. The other guys, they just want to put up smoke screens and draw our attention to things of little significance...like LIPSTICK.
They have nothing to say, so they are desperately looking for things to go negative on. Since they can't find any dirt, they have to make it look like Barack and Joe are being bad boys and saying snarky things about a certain lady. Barack and Joe are too good for that.
So now that the celeb veep for the other camp has hit the stage...let all get over ourselves and get back to the real issues. Leave the lipstick for Mary Kay parties and let's get on with winning this election for Barack and Joe! Yeah!
LETTERMAN: Let me ask you a question here, have you ever actually put lipstick on pig?
OBAMA: The answer would be no. But I think it might be fun to try …. This is sorta silly season in politics. Not that there’s a non silly season but it gets sillier . It’s a common expression in at least Illinois. I don’t know about in New York City. I don’t know what you put lipstick on here. (Silly cringe from Letterman. Laughter from audience) In Illinois, The expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea — in this case I was talking about McCain’s economic plans — calling them ‘change,’ calling them something different doesn’t make them better. Hence lipstick on a pig is still a pig.
He then added that Palin represented the lipstick in the picture, with McCain’s policies as the pig.
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
Is it just me or did anyone else get this impression? The night Sarah Palin spoke at the convention looked like it was a scene stolen from the back lot of a Disney production.
I am losing track of all the "scandals" swirling around Sarah Palin. The longer she is shielded from the press and the public the more these stories grow. The campaign's choice to only allow her to address the public through speeches written by professional writers only reinforces the public suspicions and the rumors.
In a recent article on the Right Side of the News, The Media Plan to Destroy Palin , written by Cliff Kincaid and posted on September 7, belies the confidence so publicly showered on Sarah Palin by those that support her. Kincaid states that Sarah Palin accepting televised interviews with the press would be a "trap and politically suicidal." Kincaid says about the recently announced interview with ABC's Charles Gibson that "Democrats will be counting on Gibson to to spring a trap" on Sarah Palin and "make her look like an ignorant buffoon on some issue or another." He goes on to say that Palin should not be underestimated since she has worked as a journalist and understands how the media works.
All that I could find about her journalistic career was that she worked as a sports announcer and assisted in her husband's fishing business before she began her political career as president of the Wasilla high school PTA. I suppose that gave her some understandings of the workings of a small news operation in Wasilla. But the greater message that is communicated in Kincaid's article is the fear that Sarah Palin really will fall on her face. He says, "There is no doubt there is a plan underway to get her."
All this couching in fear that there is a plan to make Palin look like a fool is merely creating an expectation that she will fail if she goes before the public media without a scripted speech. This does two things for Palin. First it makes her look inexperienced before she has a chance to prove otherwise. Secondly, it sets the stage for her to actually be weak in her public appearances but the bar is set so low that if she merely mucks through the interview she comes out a winner. Neither is a good long-term outcome for the career of Sarah Palin. The conservatives are reinforcing a growing thought that Palin is McCain's Dan Quail.
Then instead of elevating the campaign rhetoric, Kincaid dips back to the 1980's to dredge up "dirt" on Joe Biden in regards to a paper he wrote in law school in which he did not adequately cite a paragraph in a paper which resulted in Joe getting an "F" in the class. Joe Biden completely disclosed this incident and opened the records for public view. Is this the worst dirt on Joe they can find is an gaff on an a school paper that happened over 30 years ago?
If we want an honest campaign that is focused about the issues that matters to American citizens than the McCain campaign and it's adherents need to keep it clean on their side. The ads designed to do nothing but generate unfounded fear about Senator Obama but provide no content about McCain's plan for governing the country are a waste of air time and have created this backlash by the blogging world. The Obama campaign is attempting to keep the campaign on the issues. Unfortunately the American public reacts to negative campaigning and fear tactics so the McCain campaign is choosing the low road. It may result in a boost in poll numbers but is this the way to run with integrity? Is this the heroic approach to leadership?
Kincaid mentions the Daily Koz as the progenitor of the Palin scandal rumors. What he fails to mention is that the very same rumors were already being circulated around the Alaska state capital by people that know and work with Sarah Palin. The rumors were not fabricated by the Daily Kos. If the McCain campaign had done its homework and properly vetted Governor Palin, they would have discovered the rumors before reading them on the blogs with the rest of us. And as I have stated before, the story of the Palin family was owned by Sarah Palin. If she had properly handled the story (and I say this not knowing how the campaign may have forced her to handle it) then the blogging community would have never started digging through the internet to find the answers that should have been provided in her family bio.
The obvious lack of confidence given to Sarah Palin is unfair and rather sexist in my opinion. We all saw the incredible delivery of the speech she gave at the RNC. I believe that she can better handle an interview more than John McCain appears to believe in his own candidate.
This is either sexism or McCain has determined after getting to know her better that Palin is honestly not up to the challenge.
First the McCain campaign issued a statement that Sarah Palin will not be engaging in interviews with the press. Huffington Post
Now they have granted a single interview to ABC. Charles Gibson had genteelly handled a McCain interview earlier so they feel this is a safe place to start with Governor Palin. It is understandable that anyone so new to the national scene might need a softball interview to get her confidence up and some practice in. How confident is anyone that this carefully chosen interview will reveal anything? Not much. The goal is to put her before the media in a safe venue so that she can gain some confidence and prove herself to the McCain campaign as much as to anyone. I believe she has the self confidence to go before the media and hit a home run.
Remember the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom? Sarah Palin has the lipstick and the internal fortitude to go on any talk show and hold her own. The sooner they put her out there and take the training wheels off the better it will be for Governor Palin and for the campaign.
John McCain picked the fruit off the tree before it was ripe. We have a green untested person running for Republican Vice President of the United States. And now they are shielding this candidate from the press until they feel she will be treated with "deference" and "respect."
If she is intending to serve at the executive level of our government, she had better at least be able to handle the American press corp. Deference is granted out of respect. If the McCain campaign hopes to have any respect for McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, they better quit shielding her and let her stand on her own two feet. They cannot continue to cry "foul" and "sexism" when the press does it job asking the questions that America wants to know about this candidate. If "big daddy McCain" keeps shielding Sarah, it will continue to grow the perception that she cannot stand on her own and also that maybe there is something to hide.
I for one, think this is a grand ploy to captivate the media and the public. If you say that Sarah Palin will not address the press in an interview you peak the public's interest for the day you unveil her. The past two weeks have felt like a staged grab for higher Nielsen ratings. You know how smarmy T.V. gets from situation comedies to the reporting of the news when the media knows Nielsen is polling the public about what shows they watch. Well, right now the show is Palin, 24/7, around the clock.
This scenario is as ripe with dangers as Sarah Palin is green for national office. Dangers for McCain's campaign that the public will reject his choice. Dangers that the public will simply get bored with all this. Dangers for the Obama campaign that Palin is so hot, hot, hot, that they cannot address anything in regards to her without getting burned. Dangers for Sarah Palin that John McCain will so undermine her confidence and the confidence of the public in her that her political career will end as quickly as it started.
As defined by *Webster's unabridged dictionary:
Def"er*ence\, n. [F. d['e]f['e]rence. See 3d Defer.] A yielding of judgment or preference from respect to the wishes or opinion of another; submission in opinion; regard; respect; complaisance.
Deference to the authority of thoughtful and sagacious men. --Whewell. Deference is the most complicate, the most indirect, and the most elegant of all compliments. --Shenstone.
Usage: Deference marks an inclination to yield one's opinion, and to acquiesce in the sentiments of another in preference to one's own. Respect marks the estimation that we have for another, which makes us look to him as worthy of high confidence for the qualities of his mind and heart. Reverence denotes a mingling of fear with a high degree of respect and esteem. Age, rank, dignity, and personal merit call for deference; respect should be paid to the wise and good; reverence is due to God, to the authors of our being, and to the sanctity of the laws. *deference. (n.d.). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved September 07, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deference I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
The website, RenewAmerica.us was the stomping grounds of one of the faithful whom they have solidly backed for President. I can't tell you how shocked I was when I went to the website today and saw that it has had a serious make-over in design. Before the design had been rather dark and lacking a bit in aesthetics. It's beautiful now - a really professional design. But then I noticed it, or actually sensed something missing. Where was Alan Keyes?
Renew America once had a graphic of Alan Keyes for President right on the top banner. I honestly thought that the website was owned by Alan Keyes his picture and name were so prominent on the site.
***Update***: The graphic displayed here is from the candidate's website. I believe the graphic was once also displayed at the top of the Renew America website. That is a disputed fact. However I have added several screen shots below that do verify that the banner did include photos of Alan Keyes for quite some time.
Now the banner is a subdued graphic of the founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention.
No where could I find mention of the Alan Keyes campaign for president. And I could not find Alan Keyes as a contributor to the site. So I used Google search and found his campaign website. On August 20th, 2008, with little fanfare, Alan Keyes was selected as the presidential candidate for America's Independent Party.
***Update***: There is one mention of Alan Keys in the History section of the Renew America website.
***Update***: Article in the Christian News Wire states that Renew America spearheaded the political action committee, We Need Alan Keyes for President. The following statement if from the article of June 5, 2007:
According to a statement at the website -- AlanKeyes.com -- the organization's purpose is to "determine and rally support for a presidential candidacy by Dr. Keyes."
The statement adds, "We Need Alan Keyes for President, Inc., is a political action committee . . . not managed by Alan Keyes."
The effort is spearheaded by several individuals at RenewAmerica, a grassroots organization affiliated with Keyes.
Here is a link to a letter asking for support published on the Renew America website.
And here is a screenshot just in case it is gone by the time you read this:
Here is the appeal as to why we need Alan Keyes:
Why we need Alan
Like the writer of the above e-mail, many conservatives have concluded that none of the existing candidates is prepared to lead our country to the kind of moral, political, social, and--yes--religious renewal needed to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" in these troubling times.
While many of the candidates are admirable individuals with notable strengths, only Dr. Keyes has the comprehensive--and exceptional--understanding, skill, intelligence, credentials, and leadership needed to guide our country back to its foundations, in an election that may be the most crucial in our nation's history.
Alan is the only potential nominee who can truly unite and inspire grassroots Americans in the cause of reclaiming our republic.
Alan's record of courageous leadership in defense of moral principle--includingdefense of the unborn, the traditional family, and religious liberty--is unsurpassed.
Alan's understanding of sound national policy and clear founding principle--and his energetic advocacy of these things in public life--set him apart from the current field of hopefuls.
If conservatives are to have a strong, unifying voice in the upcoming presidential election, they need to rally around Dr. Keyes and create a veritable army of right-thinking citizens who are willing to amass the support needed to elect him.
Who is Alan Keyes? His resume is interesting to say the least. Dr. Keyes has run twice for president and three times for the U.S. Senate. In 2004 he ran against Barack Obama for the Illinois senate doing the bidding of the Conservative movement. This was their tactical play to take down Obama early before he had a chance to run for president. Keyes is running for president again now in 2008, but you won't see him on CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox News. Why not? Even though he it the one candidate that fully embodies the conservative and pro-life beliefs that the radical right say they also stand for, he has not received their anointed permission to run for president. John McCain is the anointed one. John McCain scooped up the right-wing babe, Sarah Palin as his veep, and now an aura glows about John McCain. Or is that just the reflection of Sarah's bright light?
***Update***: What Alan Keyes has to say about the McCain/Palin ticket.
I hear that Richard Viguerie, the renowned conservative political consultant, described McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate as "perfect." As a matter of unalloyed political calculation, I'm sure he's right. McCain cannot win without support from the pro-life moral constituency. Given his abandonment of pro-life principle, he cannot get that support on his own merit. Support from supposed leaders of the moral constituency wasn't getting the desired results. Their endorsements and fallacious arguments couldn't stand up to the truth about his actions. Given the facts, these leaders were simply destroying their own credibility. Since his own record belies any attempts to portray him as pro-life, the choice of Sarah Palin allows him to run on someone else's. All his supporters have to do is convince the moral constituency to forget that they are voting for John McCain and act as if they are voting for Sarah Palin. McCain can't be too comforted, however, by the knowledge that some of them are trying to make their point with whispered references to McCain's age, and the likelihood that his early demise would bring his running mate to the Oval Office.
Richard Viguerie's comments about McCain's choice of Sarah Palin.
Rather than showing up at the polls just to vote against Obama, conservatives now have a reason to support the Republican ticket — not just a reason, but a good reason. McCain could have gone the other way and chosen a VP who would appeal more to the left, in keeping with this own views, but he not only did the right thing, but the smart thing as well when he picked Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin for the position.
When I search for Alan Keyes using Google search I found some pages you won't find navigational links to on the RenewAmerica.us site. Either they are holding them until after the election, or they just haven't bothered to delete them. I snipped this screen shot from RenewAmerica.us because I am guessing it is not long for the world and I wanted you to see just how recent this change has been. Was it the Sarah Palin pick by McCain that caused this change and a decision of Renew Amercia to get behind the ticket? The website has removed all formal mention of Alan Keyes. If you click the picture it is linked to the actual page, that is unless by the time you click it, the page has been purged. There is a lot of purging going on over the web since Palin has joined the McCain campaign.
***Update***: A service used by Renew America to track audience traffic provides a link that shows how the site looked in the past. The archive shows the site as it looked six months ago and then previous. The most recent six months are not yet shown at the link:
Here are some snapshots. They don't show the graphic I remember being there in the recent past, but again, they don't show the most recent six months. What is shown is that Alan Keyes photos are part of the Renew America Banner six months ago and up to six years ago. The point being that Renew America has been affiliated with supporting Alan Keyes for years.
My question remains. Why was Alan Keyes purged from the Renew America website? Did he preemptively leave the site and ask that his articles be pulled because he is appalled that the site is now backing John McCain?
February 2008 January 2007
December 2006 January 2005 January 2003 July 2002 Today, September 7
I would be remiss if I did not also direct you to the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney, also a Black American candidate for President in the 2008 election. The Green Party website.
When Ralph Reed wrote his fiction thriller Dark Horse about an Independent candidate that comes out of no where and stirs up the presidential election, was he thinking of Alan Keyes?
I confirm that I am a private citizen and in no way officially connected to the Barack Obama campaign other than personally being in support of the Obama candidacy.
