Speechless

From Politico--

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day.(Good job Sarah, you read a newspaper) Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

The prospects of this woman actually being nominated as a presidential candidate is terrifying. Obama should "toughen up", and start a war. Nice. Palin's take on foreign policy sounds like a drunken college frat boy playing alpha male and trying to impress a girl.

And then there's this gem--

Palin, who slammed Emanuel last week for calling liberal activists "f---ing retards," declined to ask conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for using the term "retards" on his nationally syndicated show, saying Limbaugh used the word as satire.

"I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people who he did not agree with f---ing retards and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. There's a big difference there," said Palin, whose youngest son Trig has Down Syndrome.

Palin made the comment after Wallace asked her about this Limbaugh quote: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. ... I mean these people, these liberal activists, are kooks."

"Should Rush Limbaugh apologize," Wallace asked.

Palin responded, "They are kooks so I agree with Rush Limbaugh."

I can't even comment on this because I know people who support this woman, and I don't want to insult them. I don't even know what to say. She is an absolute joke. The hypocrisy is just astounding. Just decry Limbaugh's comment! But she can't. And that's how bad it's gotten.

Negro Please!

This whole Harry Reid "scandal" is absolutely absurd, and is nothing more than a symptom of the vile political climate in this country. Was what he said less than tactful? Of course. Did he use an archaic term from a more racially fractured time in American history? Yes, and he probably used that term because he grew up in said period of time. And lastly, is what he said true? I think that if we were honest with ourselves we would have to answer in the affirmative. So he made an off the cuff remark using a racially insensitive word that just so happened to be true. He apologized to the person he made the statement about and that person forgave him. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that our system is so screwed up that either side will do anything to score cheap political points. The idea that Reid should resign over what he said is ludicrous-- almost as ludicrous as these disingenuous schmucks on the right feigning outrage. And then to make it worse, the arguments Republicans are making about double standards, citing the Trent Lott remarks about Strom Thurmond, further displays their dimwittedness on race matters. Trent Lott lamented that a man who ran on a segregationist platform did not win the presidency. Let me see, saying "Gee Strom, I wish you would have become president and crushed the civil rights movement" is a little worse than Reid's inappropriate comment. But they don't seem to grasp that. The second a drop of blood hits the water, they just swarm. Because really, the truth is that they could give a damn about what Harry Reid said, they just want to take him down and gain power.

And that's a shame, because I really want to believe that there are good Republicans and Democrats who actually do want to work together for the good of the country. But as the Obama presidency has gone through it's first year, I struggle more so every day in believing that. And if I was honest, I would say that one side is worse. Above I said that "either side" will do anything to score cheap political points, and in the past that has probably been true, but the more I pay attention to politics (especially with the last election), the more I see the cheapest, most desperate and underhanded attacks coming from the right. For instance, the right has used everything from fear mongering about government takeovers to fear mongering about death panels to derail meaningful healthcare reform. And I can't help but believe they're now playing the race card to that end as well.

Thoughts On Who Joe the Plumber's Been Checkin Out Lately...

This morning I came into work to Fox Noise Channel's ongoing coverage of the beauty queen homophobe's supposed persecution by the evil liberal media, and now apparently Donald Trump. Great way to start off a Monday! I hate to rant, but really, are Conservative Evangelicals really this hypocritical to make this chick their gay-marriage martyr after pornographic photos she apparently lied about taking have come to light?? And yes, I think they are pornographic, not "tasteful" as the moron on Fox described them as.

This whole shit storm beautifully illustrates how warped the Christian right's views on gay marriage really are. Gay marriage will supposedly destroy the sanctity and institution of marriage they argue, yet the type of "modeling" Miss Prejean has been involved in has done more to tarnish and destroy traditional marriage in this country than the gay rights lobbies could ever dream of. It just goes to show how dogmatic the issue of gay marriage has become with some Christian conservatives.

Conservatives are fighting a losing battle on this, and they need to just back out before they continue to look even more foolish. Marriage is not going anywhere, unless you believe something instituted by God can be destroyed by humans. We live in a pluralistic, secular, democracy. So gay couples should have the same rights heterosexual couples have, and if this country wants to call it marriage then so be it. I personally would disagree that the term "marriage" accurately describes the union of two homosexuals, but I also would disagree it accurately describes whatever that two day fling was that Brittany Spears had as well. The bottom line is that family will not be strengthened when we have a marriage amendment to the constitution, as conservative evangelicals so fervently believe. The family will begin to be strengthened when we start treating each other as human beings and not sex objects. And it will be strengthened when we actually see marriage as a covenant rather than a contract we can tear up when things get tough. Until these Christians recognize that, they're going to continue turning Americans off to their brand of Christianity. Not that that's a bad thing.

Partisanship Fails Again

I've been trying to digest this whole stimulus mess. I've gone back and forth sometimes believing that the Republicans need to keep the spending on pet Democratic programs in check, and sometimes believing that the Dems just need to go all out, and do their thing. I've been disappointed that Obama has seemed to give up on bi-partisanship, and been annoyed at the fact that the Republicans don't give a crap about bi-partisanship. But as the Senate comes to a deal on this, and as I gorge myself on opinion and analysis on this issue, my thoughts are this: Partisanship fails again.

As usual, Robert Samuelson lays it all out:

"Unfortunately, investing in tomorrow won't automatically stimulate the economy today. The $819 billion program passed by the House will only slowly provide stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal 2009 (through this September) about 21 percent of the new spending and tax cuts will flow to the economy. For 2010, the estimate is another 44 percent. The total of 65 percent means that, by CBO's estimate, about a third of the $819 billion package would be spent after fiscal 2010."

''Or take the $39 billion in the House bill for added highway and transit construction. That's nearly double existing funding levels. When queried, state officials worried about how fast they could "adjust their contracting procedures" for such a big increase, reports CBO. As stimulus, the better course would simply be to give more money to states and localities -- and order them to spend it. Most would plug deficits, avoiding program cuts and layoffs."

"What's also sacrificed are measures that, though lacking in long-term benefits, might help the economy now. A $7,500 tax credit for any homebuyer in the next year (and not just first-time buyers, as is now in the bill) might reduce bloated housing inventories. Similarly, a temporary $1,500 credit for car or truck purchases might revive sales, which are down a third from 2007 levels. Normally, these targeted incentives would be unjustified; today, they may be necessary expedients."

"The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect."

Don't get me wrong, I think some long term projects should be included, but I also think the bill is loaded with too many "partisan projects." But is Obama to blame? I would agree with Pat Buchannan who, on the Mclaughlin Group, said that Obama isn't to blame; Pelosi is. Pat also added that he believes Obama is really unhappy with the bill, but is pushing it to please his party. And while I think that some of the Republican criticisms are probably valid, all I seen from them is ideology and their same ol' solution of cutting taxes for people who aren't going to spend it. What we needed was a stimulus package that was mainly immediate stimulus. What we got is a Democratic project loaded package that did nothing but create partisan bickering. Which isn't to say that I don't believe in what much of the Dem's want to do, I do, but this wasn't the right time. I know they think it was, but their reasons for thinking that wasn't the change I, nor most Americans, voted for.

Thoughts on Last Night's Debate

The analysis coming out about last night's debate consistently have reported that there was no train wreck, there was nothing special or that it was Sarah Palin's night. One thing I will say about Palin is that she didn't crash as bad as I thought she was going to, based on the first half an hour. I thought it was going to be a slaughter when the topic was bankruptcy and the mortgage crisis, and Plalin gave a yes/no answer, then procreeded to ramble endlessly about energy. I was stunned. A couple questions later Palin, obviously getting nervous, called Senator Biden "Senator O'Biden." Thankfully, for her sake, her performance didn't continue to decline and she regained control.

But this is what is just killing me, and this is what I loathe about American politics. Everyone is saying she debated well. But if you actually listened to her versus Senator Biden, her answers and arguments sucked. I would bet that over 50 percent of what she said was the same thing over and over again. Half of what she said was populist, homespun, gibberish, and slogans about her and McCain being "mavericks." I was ready to shoot myself if I heard the word "maverick" one more time. Meanwhile, Senator Biden clearly had-- agree with his positions or not-- command of every issue spitting out facts and statistics to back up everything he said. Like one commentator I heard this morning said: Senator Biden appealed to those who respond to rational arguments while Governor Palin appealed to those who respond to emotion. And this is why Palin just drives me insane. She is the embodiment of, the concentrated form of, everything that is wrong with American politics. Her interviews, to any critical listener, are a joke! Tina Fey used one of her answers, word for word, in a parody of her! She obviously doesn't know crap about the world outside of Alaska, but because she supposedly "relates" to people because she's a hockey mom and uses folksy vernacular, her performances are lauded.

To be fair, Biden also tried to appeal to the common man himself, which he had to do considering what he was up against. And he also used slogans and sound bites as well, but no one can doubt that he is ready to be President. This debate was like watching a high school student take on a professor. And, yes, they both stretched the truth as well, and Yahoo posted a fact-check here.

Lastly, I would be saying all of this if I were still a Rush Limbaugh listening conservative. The fact that a large portion of the country trusts Palin, based on what we've seen of her, to be President is terrifying to me. Being a hockey mom, a good parent, down-home, middle-class etc... are not reasons we should vote for anyone. And, thankfully, before this debate more and more people began realizing she was a bad choice. In a week, after this debate is forgotten about, maybe people will continue coming to their senses.

You Can Put Lipstick on a Pitbull, But it's Still a Pitbull

I want to be Bi-Partisan. I really do!! But Republicans are making it just so hard. Sure Obama is using this whole lipstick non-sense to scold the McCain campaign and score political points, but at the same time Obama is right to scold them. It's just idiotic! Anybody who does just a little bit of research knows that Obama was not calling Palin a pig. It's a figure of speech John McCain has used numerous times. Even Bill O'Reilly has got Obama's back on this! But, who knows, after that interview, maybe he's now smitten with Barry as well.

Anyways, Obama is calling this Swiftboat politics. How ironic Palin supporter, Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift had this to say: "She is the only one of the four candidates for president, or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick."

Shameless. Thank God, they're taking a break for 9-11.

Source

And Just to be Fair...

Yahoo also posted this AP article fact-checking speeches made at the DNC.

Fact-Checking the RNC

Yahoo just posted this AP article on their home page analyzing speeches made at the RNC.