If you watched the Democratic Convention last week, you saw a party that loves their country and the people in it, and wants to win an election by appealing to the people and calling for a new direction for the country. You saw a party that, while very clear about the differences between them and their opponents, has a positive vision for what America can become and a positive direction of leadership.

The Republicans, in contrast, have become a party of hate and contempt. They hate the Democratic Party and their standard-bearer, Barack Obama, and clearly think that the rest of the American people are too stupid to realize that the reason the country has been run into the ground is years of incompetent, morally-bankrupt, corrupt, and ideologically-unsound Republican "leadership." Their plan to win the election is to pour as much contempt on Barack Obama as possible and hope they can make enough people afraid of him that they'll stay home.

I sincerely hope that the American people will be smart enough to see through the Republicans' lies and amorality. I also sincerely hope that those who consider themselves Republicans will put country above party and call on their party to begin campaigning honestly on issues and ideas rather than on hate, contempt, and fearmongering. But mostly, I hope that those who have taken the Republican Party in this direction - including their presidential and vice-presidential candidates - go down to such ignominious defeat in November that their political philosophy is completely discredited and people of conscience retake the Republican Party.

Labels: Democrats, Politics, Republicans

...you're threatening to sue the National Enquirer.

What next? A suit against Mad Magazine for running a less-than-flattering caricature of Palin in this month's issue? Or will it be a suit against the Weekly World News for suggesting that Sarah Palin is also the mother of Bat Boy?

"Macabre" doesn't even begin to describe the circus this choice has become...

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin

First, let me get something out of the way:

Things that are not any of our business:

• Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy

Thank you. Anyone who thinks otherwise can just bug off. No teenage girl deserves to have her problems broadcast on national TV, even if her mother is the Republican VP pick.

But there are some things that are our business regarding John McCain's irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin. For example, on the aforementioned story: Why did the McCain campaign claim that they knew about this pregnancy before they chose her, when Palin's own press secretary didn't know a thing about it two days ago? (If you think I'm undermining my first point, remember the words of the "Impeach Clinton" crowd: it wasn't the sex but the lying.) Another good question: Why did Sarah Palin belong to an Alaskan secessionist party back in the 1990s, and does she still sympathize with their "Alaska First" views (which would, of course, contrast with McCain's own "Country First" campaign)? Why did Palin have to lawyer up today in the Troopergate scandal in Alaska?

But those questions are all trivial and meaningless, really (except for perhaps the last one, which might indicate her willingness to abuse government power for personal vendettas... which isn't necessarily a dealbreaker in the Bush-McCain era). They're fodder for the bloggers and the talking heads for a few days, after which they fade into oblivion. The question we should be asking, the key to the whole thing, is this: why does all of this seem to be taking the McCain campaign by surprise?

If Sarah Palin were an applicant for just about any government job that's going to have access to the most classified information we have (as the VP has), she would have to go through an incredibly thorough, invasive, and stringent vetting process. She would have to list just about everyone she's ever known and anything that could even potentially be used against her. This isn't just to root out potential spies; this kind of background checking is done because people with access to that kind of classified information can be blackmailed or threatened if there are skeletons in their closets. It's for the protection of the country and the information, and I for one am glad that everyone with high clearance has been checked out by the appropriate government agency.

However, an applicant for the vice presidency cannot constitutionally be held to any standard other than that he/she be 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.

Thus, if the McCain campaign is putting "Country First" and not "Election First," as they claim, wouldn't they want to vet a person who would have access to the most classified information we have at least as much as an agency like the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. would? Hell, even if they are putting "Election First," wouldn't they want to do that kind of vetting, as scandals like these could threaten to derail the candidacy?

What does it say about John McCain's decision-making ability that he would make this choice - which is, we should note, the first presidential choice a candidate makes, and perhaps the most important - without doing his homework? What does it say about his judgment that the decision appears to have been made before the candidate was vetted?

Most importantly - do we really want that kind of decision-making judgment out of the person with his finger on the flashing red button?

I sure as hell don't.

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin

...really is a woman after John McCain's own heart:

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge.

But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." [...]

In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.

Wow... she really is a maverick. To make the soundbite line of her speech a bald-faced lie, instead of the half-truths and bumbling "my friends" of John McCain, is truly mavericky and bold.

Is anyone over at Camp McCain doing their job? Come to think of it, is anyone in the national media - you know, the people who should be pointing out that Palin openly lied in her speech - doing their job?

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin

Remember Katrina? Remember Bush's pathetic response to Katrina? What you might not remember was who Bush was hanging out with while he was ignoring the plight of the people of New Orleans...



That's right: John McCain. Happy birthday, Johnny. Way to keep the president focused on what really matters.

This time, though, it would appear that instead of their usual policy of ignoring things that affect people making less than $5 million (all of whom are, to McCain, middle-class), the Republicans are actually going to pay attention if a hurricane hits New Orleans... because it's going to disrupt their convention.

First, McCain and his entourage visited a relief center in Mississippi today. This, of course, might do more harm than good, as a visiting presidential candidate requires not only Secret Service protection but also coordination with local public safety resources - resources that could probably be better put to use actually engaging in the relief effort instead of providing a presidential candidate a photo-op pretending to engage in the relief effort.

Second, they're changing their convention plans from a celebration - though I honestly have no idea what they have to celebrate - to a "service convention." Bush has apparently cancelled his appearance at the convention - probably even more welcome news for McCain as he tries to distance himself from a failed president - and the rest of the convention is probably going to be muted as well. I honestly can't knock that at all. As someone on another blog said, sometimes the right thing and the politically-expedient thing are the same.

But third - and this is the part that really chaps my hide - is this tidbit from the Politico, which has sources within the GOP:

McCain was scheduled to deliver his acceptance speech Thursday, but now may do so from the devastation zone if the storm hits the U.S. coast with the ferocity feared by forecasters.

Seriously? John McCain would divert massive resources from the relief effort - which will need to be huge even if the hurricane does minimal damage, but even more so "if the storm hits the U.S. coast with the ferocity feared by forecasters" - to make a political speech? A lot of cops, firefighters, security services, infrastructure, etc. would be necessary to provide for McCain to make his acceptance speech from the "devastation zone;" I know this from having been locked out of my workspace for about five hours by the Secret Service at Invesco on Thursday night. These things don't just happen. Is John McCain really so focused on November 5, and not on January 20 (or, for that matter, on the people of New Orleans), that he would really divert precious resources from actual disaster relief to a photo-op when they're needed most?

Sen. McCain, please do the right thing and stay the hell away from the Gulf Coast for the next week like Obama is doing. The people down there need to devote all their resources to getting people out of the area, bracing for the hurricane, and rebuilding and helping people afterward, not to backing up the Secret Service so you can get a photo-op and look presidential.

Labels: Hurricane Gustav, John McCain, Politics

Charlie Black with the Bush-McCain campaign:

[Palin]’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long.

I know it was a joke, but seriously... most doctors think he'll be around at least that long? What happens if he isn't? A 72-year-old man with a history of cancer and other ailments could (God forbid) pass away at any time - even on January 21, 2009. Will she be ready then? Or will she still need a few years to "learn national security at the foot of the master"? If so, what new "master" will be pulling the strings of the new Commander-in-Chief?

The more I look at this choice, the more it becomes clear to me that with this decision John McCain was thinking only of November 5, 2008 - and not of January 20, 2009. It's an irresponsible choice - and an even more irresponsible way of making that choice - from the man who wants Americans to make him the next leader of the free world.

Update: Even Karl Rove thinks this is an irresponsible choice - or at least he did back on August 10:

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

It's important to note here that Tim Kaine has twice as much experience as governor as Sarah Palin, and of a much more populous and diverse state with an economy that isn't propped up by the oil and gas industries and federal pork.

Oh, and for the record, I can't even find where Wasilla, Alaska, with its population of a whopping 6,715, ranks on the list of US cities. But if the state of Alaska were a city, its population of 680,000 would make it the 17th largest city in the nation - meaning that anyone who has been the mayor of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Columbus, or Austin has, in fact, had more constituents than Gov. Palin.

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin

Okay, first things first: Last night, I was a part of history. The convention was nothing short of incredible - and though I didn't have as much of a chance as I'd have liked to mingle with big- and medium-wigs, the fact that I got to be there at all is a memory I'm going to take with me for the rest of my life.

But the big story today - as John McCain intended - is Sarah Palin, McCain's choice for running mate. To be honest, I find her utterly underwhelming... but more important than the political implications of having her on the ticket, I think, is how the candidates' differing processes of selecting running mates reflects on their judgment and decision-making capabilities.

Barack Obama, as is now well-known, subjected his potential VP nominees to extensive scrutiny - including long conversations with his vetting team and with himself and a deep exploration of his candidates' personal, political, and financial records. Every angle, everything in the candidates' pasts, everything they'd said and done, was considered when coming to this decision, which was mulled over for quite a while.

And it's clear from Obama's process that the primary qualifications for the role were (a) that the person be prepared to take over the presidency on day one should the unthinkable happen, (b) that the person have independent judgment and be willing to express contrary opinions to Obama's, and (c) that the person have a good working relationship with Obama. Obama got all three - and much, much more - in Joe Biden, who convinced me even more this week that he is the right man for the job. (Not to mention that his mother is perhaps the sweetest little old lady on the face of the planet.)

On the other hand, John McCain - as is becoming well-known - went from his gut, deciding just the other night that Palin was his pick. He'd met Palin a grand total of once - yes, one time - before deciding that the not-even-half-term governor of a state of 680,000 people with no economic or foreign policy experience of any kind was completely ready to be the leader of the free world on January 21, 2009. The vetting process for her was apparently somewhat minimal.

And I'm not entirely sure what exactly McCain saw (or sees) as the primary qualifications for the role of vice president... she's not ready to take over the job, there's absolutely no evidence on her of any kind on the issues that matter, and McCain had met her only once before choosing her, thus negating any argument about his trusting her character or about their working relationship. The cynical part of me says that the reasons for her choice as running mate are rather obvious (made all the more so by her reference to Hillary Clinton in her introduction speech today - an insult to all real supporters of Hillary Clinton, who even though she was not my choice to be president was certainly qualified for the job), but the part of me that thinks that John McCain made this decision for the good of the country is wondering just what the hell he was thinking, putting someone he barely knows and who has no record and no relevant experience potentially one heartbeat away from having her finger on the button.

Now which kind of decision-maker do we want leading the free world? Do we want someone who considers all the angles, consults intelligent people from various ideological standpoints, thinks deeply about the issue, and comes to a conclusion based on the best possible criteria for a successful choice? Or do we want four more years of the last eight years, a president who shoots from the hip and makes decisions based on his gut feelings with criteria for success that aren't at all clear?

In other words - do we want intelligent leadership in Obama, or do we want four more years of Bush-McCain?

The choice to me is very clear - and made even more so by what, in my opinion, is a rather irresponsible choice on John McCain's part.

Labels: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Politics, Sarah Palin

Why is it that Barack Obama is painted as an elitist when John McCain, the son and grandson of admirals who grew up in privilege, has a great deal more money, wants to basically sell what remains of this country's middle class to the rich, and doesn't even know how many houses he owns at a time when many of his "fellow" Americans can barely afford to stay in theirs, is somehow seen as a "regular guy"?

Anyway, Obama's come out with a new, strong ad on this very topic.



Update: "John Sixpack" calls the Waaaaaaaambulance and issues a response.

Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

Um... "Senator"? Barack Obama earned his money by writing books people wanted to read, and only got out of student loan debt a few years ago. You left your first wife, the mother of your children, because your mistress had a lot of money and was willing to fund your political career... not to mention that you can't even be bothered to show up for the job the American people are paying you to do. I don't think you want to have the debate about who's making a better living here, "Senator" Whiny.

Update 2: Someone else pointed out that according to John McCain, Barack Obama's $4 million income is still well within the middle-class.

Update 3: Another predictable response from Widdle Crybaby Johnny's campaign: "b-b-b-but he was a POW!"

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Republicans

That should be a key question in this debate.

Andrew Sullivan makes the point that according to McCain, he was subjected to the following as a POW in Vietnam:

The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating.

Hmmmm.... those practices sound curiously similar to the practices the Bush-McCain administration deemed not to be torture - a definition John McCain condoned and approved when he voted for the Intelligence Authorization Bill back in February (one of the few votes "Senator" McCain has showed up for during this campaign).

So, "Senator" McCain: Was what you underwent torture, or wasn't it? If it was, then how the hell can you condone it as a practice of the United States government?

This is, quite simply, an open-and-shut moral case. Torture is wrong, period. Under all circumstances, in all situations, those who engage in torture and those who condone or approve its use are engaging in a grave moral evil. And anyone who supports those who condone or approve torture without speaking out forcefully and at every opportunity is equally guilty.

In February 2008, "Senator" John McCain, who once defied his generally-slimy character and stood honorably and morally to oppose torture, decided when it came to choosing between keeping his honor and winning the Republican primary, winning was more important than the deepest and most personal moral principles.

Anyone who calls him- or herself a person of conscience cannot support "Senator" John McCain, who is standing on the side of evil on one of the most clear-cut moral issues of our age.

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Torture

...make sure it's this... a man who spent more time than John McCain in the POW camps in Vietnam writing about why he won't vote for John McCain. Some highlights:

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately.

Read the whole thing... if for no other reason than that Widdle Johnny's "...b-b-b-but I was a POW!" excuse for wrangling out of any and all criticism won't work quite so well here.

Labels: John McCain, Politics

Awww... poor widdle Johnny thinks NBC is being too mean to him. Widdle Johnny's feelings are hurt because NBC pointed out inconsistencies in his story and caught him cheating at the church forum.

Cheating at the church forum. That's just a step above grabbing a few bucks from the offering plate while it goes past. And then he lies about it and cries like a baby when he gets called on it... not to mention his spokesperson's invoking (again) the fact that he was a POW, which apparently means that he's immune from all questions about anything he ever did.

Pathetic.

Labels: John McCain, Politics

This ad is going to run during the Saddleback Civic Forum tomorrow night, at which Obama will talk about his faith.

I think American voters really need to consider the massive character gulf between the two candidates, as evidenced by the way they treat the people closest to them. On the one side, we have a family man who has been married to the same (incredible) woman for decades, has two beautiful daughters, and has never said a single negative thing about his wife in public.

On the other, we have a guy who demonstrated his lack of devotion to family by dumping his sick wife, the mother of his children, for a rich young beauty queen - who he has then insulted and disrespected on numerous occasions in public (calling her a "c**t and a trollop" on one occasion, and suggesting she degrade herself in a "beauty pageant" on another).

I think it's time that people of conscience start pushing back against the notion that the Republicans - the party that continues to embrace Larry Craig, David Vitter, and John McCain - are the party of "family values."

Labels: Barack Obama, Family Values, John McCain, Matthew 25 Network, Politics

Wow. Does it get any more childish, immature, or insulting than this?

First of all, the fact that these "Christians" are praying for it to rain on someone else's big day just says "petulant children." I mean, can you get any more immature? "We don't like that you support women and GLBT citizens, so we're going to pray for it to rain on you." That they claim Christ supports their childish behavior is deeply offensive.

But it's even more insulting than that. As I'm typing this, I'm sitting in an apartment in California - a state that, like many other places in this world as our climate changes, is suffering from droughts that threaten the state's crops and cause even more uncontrolled wildfires. And California's got it easy drought-wise compared to other places in the world, where entire populations are threatened by lack of rain.

If these so-called "Christians" are inclined to pray for rain, perhaps they should pray for rain where it's needed instead of praying for it to fall on the people they politically disagree with. But, of course, that would mean they put the needs of suffering human beings over their political stances against women and GLBT citizens, and we can't have that.

They are heretics.

Labels: Barack Obama, Christian Right, Democratic National Convention, Politics

You'll undoubtedly notice that the McCain campaign isn't making much hay out of the Edwards affair - and the reason is that if they did, it would open them to massive charges of hypocrisy. As it is, I think we need to turn a bigger spotlight on what McCain's own affair reveals about his character.

First, like John Edwards's affair, John McCain's wife was sick at the time. It takes a special breed of scum to cheat on one's spouse when he or she needs more support, when he or she is hurting.

Second, unlike John Edwards's affair, McCain didn't break it off - in fact, he dumped his first wife (who was sick and crippled from a car accident) to run off with Cindy. Yep, Mr. Integrity himself dumped his sick wife for a hot, young, rich heiress. Edwards is working to make his marriage work; McCain decided that it was too hard to stay with his sick wife and ran off with the mistress. Stay classy, Mac.

Third, unlike John Edwards, John McCain's affair helped his career. It was Cindy's cash that bankrolled McCain's first run for office.

So, to review: John Edwards had an affair with a woman around his age, an affair that hurt his career perhaps irreparably, and broke off the affair to make things work with his wife (who is, I might add, an incredible woman who should get a Cabinet seat in the Obama administration).

John McCain had an affair with a rich beauty queen decades younger than him, an affair that helped his career by bankrolling his first campaign, and instead of doing what honorable people do he dumped his sick wife to run off with the heiress. And I have yet to see the slightest indication that he repents or regrets what he did in any way.

Someone tell me again how the Republicans - who nominated this scumbag - are the party of family values?

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Republicans

...again.

“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it,” McCain said.

Turns out that real Americans don't drive their Hummers on the rims.

One would think that after his major reversals - apparently motivated by nothing but the most craven political expediency - on Roe v Wade, campaign finance reform, the Christian Right, and, oh yeah, torture , he would get the label of flip-flopper - after all, it was applied to Kerry simply because he saw the light on the immoral, irresponsible Iraq War. But of course, the "liberal" media has no inclination of being honest about John McCain, since the real John McCain would be so odious to most voters that Obama would win in a landslide, and no tight horse-race means lower ratings.

So, let's review: John McCain is a misogynist, has no character, integrity, or class, and apparently has no core principles he's not willing to sell out in order to win an election. (If he had any, you'd think opposition to torture - which he himself underwent at the Hanoi Hilton - would be at the top of the list... but apparently even that is for sale.)

Tell me again why anyone should support him?

Labels: John McCain, Media Bias, Politics

You know you're having a bad week when you get pwned by Paris Hilton.

Labels: Fun, John McCain, Paris Hilton, Politics

Picture this: Barack Obama goes to a popular event among the African-American community that features topless women, misogynistic musicians, and a raunchy nightly beauty contest. At the event, Sen. Obama jokes that he wanted his wife, Michelle, to compete in the topless (and frequently bottomless) beauty contest, which generally devolves into a drunken orgy, so that she could be Miss [event name here] and First Lady.

Does anyone think that wouldn't be the only thing on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox "News" 24 hours a day for the next week?

So why is it that John McCain can do it without even a peep on the news networks?

Indeed, McCain felt so comfortable at the event that he even volunteered his wife for the rally’s traditional beauty pageant, an infamously debauched event that’s been known to feature topless women.

“I encouraged Cindy to compete,” McCain said to cheers. “I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip.”

That McCain can get away with this kind of thing is utterly ridiculous. So along with having no character or integrity, John McCain can also be accurately described as a misogynist... not that we didn't already know that from his generally anti-woman voting record and penchant for woman-hating "humor."

And anyone claiming to have a conscience can still support this man?

Update Thought: John McCain claims to be a Christian. What kind of Christian man would dishonor his wife by even joking in public about his wife participating in something like this?

Buffalo Chip has a reputation for that sort of thing. It holds a Miss Buffalo Chip contest every night, which is essentially a topless beauty pageant. And occasionally bottomless, too. During a drenching rain Wednesday night, the contest broke up into smaller groups and one woman wound up dancing naked on a bar top. Her boyfriend/husband saw her and angrily dragged her away as she struggled to put her pants back on and muttered something about how, "It's only this one week a year."

I laughed when I heard the guys at Buffalo Chip tell the story, but then I thought about the conversation I had with Pearl Gulbranson, who was working at the Crisis Intervention Center for domestic abuse, which is located in a house across the street from the Broken Spoke. Gather 500,000 people in one spot, feed them a lot of alcohol and there are bound to be some serious problems.

Labels: John McCain, Media Bias, Politics

...and as the last eight years have proven, he's right about this:

They're very good at negative campaigning. They're not so good at governing.

Labels: Barack Obama, Politics

...all in one.

A few days ago, Barack Obama noted that we could save more energy by properly inflating our car tires and getting regular engine service than will ever be output by the Republicans' offshore drilling plan - and, as opposed to the offshore oil reserves, which by all estimates probably won't pan out for 15-20 years if ever, we can inflate our tires and get our cars checked now.

Inflating your tires really does help your fuel economy, and I should know - my car tells me exactly how many miles I'm getting to the gallon, and I get 3-4 mpg better when my tires are at their maximum PSI.

Inflating our tires and getting tune-ups would actually help end our dependence on foreign oil in the present and it would do so without massive giveaways to the oil industry. It's a common-sense idea that would come at little cost to the American consumer and help the average Joe as well as our nation's economy.

So as expected, common sense having no place in the Republican Party, John McCain - who still has yet to tell anyone why they should vote for him instead of against Obama - has decided to make political hay out of his opponent making sense.

Seriously, Republicans... I thought he was supposed to be the different one. The one devoted to things like clean and honest campaigning, common-sense solutions, and bucking the party line. Why is it that when it comes down to choosing between winning the presidency and keeping his principles, John McCain is demonstrating that he'll pick the former ten times out of ten? And how can you in good conscience support a person of such empty character, of so little integrity, when your party has placed such a premium on those things in the past?

Update: I forgot to mention one of the likely reasons John McCain is opposed to energy solutions that don't line Big Oil's pockets... "Mr. Integrity" is taking their money. So much for principles. John McCain: No character, no class, no integrity.

Update 2: In a rare moment of responsibility amid their general policy of ignoring McCain's gaffes entirely and blowing Obama's out of proportion, it looks like the media is actually checking this one.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain, Politics

You know those ridiculous and untrue emails your Aunt Edna forwards to everyone on her mailing list claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate or doesn't really love America or is the Antichrist? (When you receive them, of course, you should reply by putting away falsehood.)

John McCain - despite his earlier promises to run a positive campaign and not be a scumbag - has joined them with this ad. To the untrained eye, it may seem like a sarcastic and ridiculous attack ad attempting to tear down Barack Obama instead of tell us why to vote for John McCain... which it is, in part. (That John McCain doesn't seem to be able to articulate any reason for people to vote for him aside from "I'm not that black guy" is a matter for another post altogether.)

But to the trained eye, it's a lot more insidious than that. I study the Christian Right for a living, a movement that is dominated by premillennial dispensationalists - people who believe that the end of the world is nigh, and that its coming will be heralded by the Antichrist, a charismatic figure who will form a one-world government and yadda yadda yadda. John McCain has historically had trouble with this crowd - perhaps because he's demonstrated throughout his career that he'd rather spend Sunday Morning in a Washington TV studio than in a pew, or perhaps because his recent attempts to act like he has core principles and get religion are so transparently phony. (Or perhaps it's because, until he started running for president and trying to get these nutjobs' votes, he actually had sane positions on things like stem-cell research.)

But this ad is designed for the Christian Right, and designed to dovetail with those emails they've been sending calling Barack Obama the Antichrist. Look at the dogwhistles throughout the ad... it's basically a coded message to the Left Behind crowd that they should be very afraid of Barack Obama. Throughout the ad, there are subtle visual hints - the clouds, the overlaid words "They will call him the one" (echoing the passages about the Antichrist), the Obama quotes (every single one, I might add, taken out of context and misused in a complete dishonest way) - that those emails you've been getting about Barack Obama are all true, no matter what Snopes may tell you.

Unless and until John McCain repudiates this ad, fires anyone responsible for it, and personally apologizes to Barack Obama and the nation, he has demonstrated that his character is worth nothing, that he is willing to sell out any of the "principles" he supposedly holds near and dear in order to win an election. That John McCain - who undoubtedly knows better - is basically forwarding the emails saying Barack Obama is the Antichrist is utterly disgraceful.

McCain supporters who read this, the ball is in your court: Morality, if not any Christian principles those of you who are of the faith hold, dictate that it is imperative that you let the McCain campaign know that this is unacceptable. Time to get on the phone.

Labels: Barack Obama, General Election 2008, John McCain, Politics, Religion

One of the major issues differences in this campaign has been the two candidates' positions on the immoral and irresponsible war in Iraq. Barack Obama, who was right in opposing the war from the very beginning, has proposed a 16-month timetable for getting our soldiers out of there; George W. Bush and his buddy John McCain, who were responsible for starting the war, have said that while it would be nice to withdraw soldiers, they're comfortable leaving them there for years, decades or even, say, a century.

Now Bush/McCain are coming around to Barack Obama's position on the issue, agreeing to a "time horizon," which is not to be confused with a timetable - after all, a table is furniture, and a horizon is a geographic entity. (In every other way, a time horizon and a timetable are indistinguishable from one another.) The only difference now between the Obama position (held by Barack Obama) and the Obama Lite position (held by Bush/McCain) is the length of this timetable - err, time horizon: Obama says by the end of 2010, Obama Lite say by the end of 2012.

Well, today is the moment of truth - because Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (the democratically elected leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq) says he agrees with Obama in wanting American soldiers out by the end of 2010.

In fact, he explicitly said he agreed with Barack Obama.

So now we see exactly how sovereign this new sovereign nation is: Will Bush/McCain do as the government of the sovereign nation of Iraq asks and start planning for a 2010 withdrawal, or will they ignore the request of the sovereign nation of Iraq and keep American soldiers there even after the sovereign nation's government has asked us to leave?

Ball's in your court, Mr. President. Will you do the right thing, or will you ignore the will of the sovereign nation your soldiers are occupying as well as that of your own people?

Labels: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Iraq, John McCain, Politics

They just launched a new website - complete with a letter of invitation from Brian McLaren.

Sign up! Donate! Tell your friends... we're taking back Christianity from the charlatans and demagogues who have hijacked it.

Labels: Barack Obama, Matthew 25 Network, Politics, Religion

Let me state at the outset that I don't like the idea of state initiatives determining marriage equality. This is a matter of civil rights; to my mind, antigay laws are the same as the anti-miscegenation laws of the last century. Civil rights shouldn't be up to majority rule; they should be guaranteed at all levels of government and protected through the court system. Despite the braying of the "Christian" Right, we live in a constitutional democracy - with the Constitution (both state and federal) protecting the rights of all even against the majority.

Nevertheless, it's encouraging to read that the unequal-marriage initiative put forward by antigay bigots in California is losing by nine points, 51%-42%. People are finally figuring out that equal marriage does not cause (a) earthquakes, (b) economic disaster, (c) the collapse of marriage everywhere, or (d) fireballs from the sky. And they're figuring out that gays and lesbians deserve the same right to marry the person they love as straight people do.

Perhaps there is hope for us after all...

Labels: California, GLBT Rights, Politics

Labels: John McCain, Politics

Editor's Note: This is the first post in a series I'm starting, where I find people who claim to be Christian acting in extremely un-Christian ways and, rather than resort to the usual namby-pamby language used by Christians on the left side of the spectrum, actually call them out for heresy.

I'm actually a bit surprised I haven't written about Bill Donohue, president of the ultra-right-wing Catholic League, in the past. It's not like he hasn't taken every opportunity available to act like a horse's ass and offend - well, really, anyone who isn't also a right-wing Catholic.

But if he wasn't guilty of the deep heresy and sacrilege of misrepresenting Christ before, he most certainly is now. Here's the story:

Recently, a student at the University of Central Florida - a public school - removed the Eucharist from the campus Roman Catholic church instead of eating it as he was supposed to. Now, I know what the Eucharist means to Catholics, and I understand why the church would get a bit upset about this, but at this point it's a local issue - church calls up kid, kid says "okay," returns Eucharist, problem solved. Right?

But wait - here's Bill Donohue! He wouldn't let any opportunity pass to make some (mostly) innocent kid's life a living hell! He and his "Catholic" League (real Catholicism, while problematically sexist and homophobic, still shouldn't be characterized by Donohue's asshattishness) decided that this kid hadn't been punished enough and made a big case out of it.

“We don’t know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was,” said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. “However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.”

A hate crime? I mean, I know you're all trying to play the victim here because that's what you pathetic people do, but a frakkin' hate crime?

The kid is receiving death threats now! Bill Donohue's "Christians" are trying to get him kicked out of school (and Fox News, true to asshat-enabling form, tells people in the article exactly how to file a complaint against this kid, no matter whether they have any connection to UCF or not) for taking a wafer out of church. Seriously, I know Roman Catholics believe that it's the actual body, but I think the "Catholic" League has forgotten exactly whose body it is - the body of a man who preached forgiveness, reconciliation, and love, not vengefulness, bitterness, and hate.

So that's it, right? Wrong. A University of Minnesota professor named PZ Myers blogged about this - very irreverently and offensively, I'll admit - on his personal website, as is his right as a human being with the right to free speech. Bill Donohue, who can't let an opportunity pass to (a) make another person's life a living hell, and (b) convince even more people that he's a flaming asshole who has no earthly clue who Jesus Christ actually is, decided that he has to go, too.

Now Prof. Myers is receiving death threats and hate mail as well - most of which are, typical of the kind of mouth-breathing Neanderthals who send death threats to people for writing on the Internet, characterized by poor spelling, grammar, and no evidence of rational thought - and, what's worse, his university president is receiving demands that he be fired. For posting on his personal website.

So I'm going to do two things here:

A. I'm going to ask my readership - all three of you - to please send an email to UMN president Robert Bruininks supporting Prof. Myers's right to free speech (even if you disagree with what he said, which I do, at least with the offensive part in question). Please be respectful, use your full name, and do all those spelling and grammar things that death-threat-sending Neanderthals haven't quite mastered yet.

B. I'm going to call out Donohue and his merry band of haters for what they are - heretics and blasphemers. If it is heresy and blasphemy to add an iota to a single word in a creed, then surely it is heresy and blasphemy to represent the Christ of love and reconciliation with words and actions of hate and vengefulness. It's time to be bold and say that Bill Donohue and the "Catholic" League are, in fact, acting against Christ, and need to repent of their hatefulness.

Okay... Seminary hat off now.

Labels: Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Politics, Religion

Are you having trouble making the mortgage payment now that your adjustable rate has gone up?

Are prices at the pump making it tougher for you to get by?

Are your stagnant wages not keeping up with your expenses?

Good news! McCain adviser Phil Gramm says it's all in your head!

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession [...] We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

Talk about out-of-touch. Tell the family whose house is being foreclosed on that we haven't had a recession yet. Tell the people who are getting laid off, or who are going back to work at jobs with longer hours for less pay and no benefits, that we haven't had a recession yet. Months of growth are fine and dandy - but when that growth only affects the portfolios of the top 1%, let's not pretend that the other 99% aren't feeling the pinch.

But that isn't even the best part:

We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

A nation of whiners? Does that make John McCain - who said in a recent ad that our economy is "in shambles" - the greatest whiner of all? And how can Phil Gramm continue to have a role in the campaign of a big whiner like John McCain?

John McCain needs to not only denounce these words but also ensure that Phil Gramm no longer serves in his campaign. For a candidate whose economic elitism - multiple houses (at least one of which he hasn't paid taxes on), hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit-card debt, the penchant for high-stakes craps games in Vegas - is a major storm on the horizon, a connection to someone who calls the very real struggles of everyday Americans "whining" will only add to the trouble.

Labels: John McCain, Phil Gramm, Politics, Republicans

You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes!

Yes, you... can be a millionaire... and never pay taxes!

You say, "Senator McCain, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?"

First... get a million dollars.

Now, you say, "Senator McCain... what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You have never paid taxes'?"

Two simple words.

Two simple words in the English language:

"I forgot!"

Labels: John McCain, Politics

So if you were going to pick two people in the Senate who would be the last ones to have a moral leg to stand on in proposing a Federal Marriage Amendment, who would they be? Which two Senators would be the biggest hypocrites in attempting to defend "traditional" marriage by passing a gay-bashing law?

Maybe these guys - David Vitter, who cheated on his wife with a prostitute, and Larry Craig, who solicited sex from an undercover officer in a men's room in the Minneapolis airport?

Yep, it's them.

Fortunately for, well, everybody, this thing doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law.

Labels: David Vitter, GLBT Rights, Larry Craig, Politics

When a bunch of billionaire Texas fatcats want to drill for oil (a dirty, non-renewable energy source whose use is killing our country and our planet) in a pristine, untouched, and unique natural environment, not only is that okay, but everyone who's against it is a tree-hugging hippie who really must love caribou more than America.

But when renewable energy companies want to put up solar panels (a clean, renewable energy source that is the source of life on this planet) in the desert - which, as a former Californian, I can attest to there being plenty of - then the Bush administration has a deep and abiding concern for this unique environment?

If it wasn't already clear exactly whose side the Bush administration is on (hint: not yours, unless you happen to have over $100 million in your bank account and vote GOP), it should be painfully clear now.

Labels: Environment, George W. Bush, Politics

John McCain's chief strategist (around the middle of the page):

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Time to get on the phone, Sen. McCain, and let Mr. Black go. It's inexcusable that a close adviser of yours would suggest any political upside to another terrorist attack on the U.S. Thousands, perhaps millions might die, but it'll be "a big advantage" for John McCain... that is, I suppose, as long as he doesn't happen to be one of those afflicted.

Very, very bad form.

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Terrorism

The Truth About Barack Obama

Labels: Barack Obama, Funny, Politics

California Legalizes Gay Marriage, Does Not Fall Into Ocean

I just checked the front page of the LA Times, and California remains high and dry just as before. This despite their legalizing gay marriage, an act the antigay bigots assured us meant that California was now on God's hit-list.

It's great seeing all those pictures of happy couples whose relationships are finally getting the legal recognition it deserves, but sad to see so-called "Christians" standing outside county court-houses with signs proclaiming hate. My message to them: Protest all you want, but please don't insult the rest of us by claiming that Jesus wants anything to do with your hate and bigotry.

Labels: California, Christian Right, Christianity, GLBT Rights, Politics, Religion

Enjoy a 360-degree panoramic view of Obama at Joe Louis Arena (where he was endorsed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore) here.

Kinda cuts through that "well, the camera angles don't show the empty seats!" crap.

(Also note the "Brighton Ford-Mercury" banner hanging from the scoreboard. A little piece of home...)

Labels: Barack Obama, Politics

This just gets weirder every time I watch it. Delivering bottled hot water to dehydrated babies? Sounds like something Grampa Simpson would say: "...well, in my day, all the dehydrated babies drank their hot water from bottles, so they wouldn't get the dropsy, and *snore*..."

Seriously... bottled hot water for dehydrated babies? I mean, you hate to jump on the guy for misspeaking, but what could he have possibly thought he was saying there?

Labels: Dehydrated Babies, John McCain, Politics

(Caution: I'm going to throw some bombs here. If you're expecting measured, academic prose, I recommend looking elsewhere.)

John McCain's problems with the (nominally) Christian Right have been well-documented. Jim Dobson, Christian quack "psychologist," has said that he "cannot and will not" vote for him, and the few evangelicals he did have on board - John Hagee and Rod Parsley - had to be thrown under the bus when it turned out that they aren't so much on board with things like not hating everyone who isn't a right-wing Christian. So even though John McCain agrees with the old guard of the (nominally) Christian Right on their big-money issues - he's anti-choice and anti-gay - he's not exactly their favorite person in the world.

Couple that with the fact that young evangelicals seem to be actually (gasp!) reading their Bibles and discovering that Jesus seemed to care a lot more about poor people than he did about whether those eeeeevil gays are marrying. They're discovering that the Bible has a lot more to say about caring for nature and making society an equitable place for the least of these than it does about the great bogeyman of "secular humanism." In short, they're discovering that they've been sold a bill of goods by the charlatans and pretenders running the (nominally) Christian Right, and that the values of the Bible, the values of the Christian tradition, are not gay marriage, secular humanism, a ban on women's rights, and free markets for all.

Enter Mara Vanderslice and the good people at the Matthew 25 Network. They don't have much up on the Intarwebs yet, but from what I understand, they're going to be reaching out to young evangelicals and trying to persuade them that there is much more to being a Christian in political life than walking in lockstep with the (nominally) Christian Right. They're going to demonstrate that it is the Democratic Party and Barack Obama - not the Republican Party and John McCain - who are likely to work for the people Jesus says we need to work for - the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the prisoners, the indigent.

I think it's a good start.

Labels: Barack Obama, Christian Right, Christianity, Matthew 25 Network, Politics, Religion

Or, as I should say, Mr. Tom "Indicted for Corruption" DeLay?

1952 called. It wants its Red Scare back.

On Mike Gallagher's right-wing nutjob radio show (transcript and recording here:

DELAY: ...hey, I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he [Obama] proves me wrong, he is a Marxist.

Really? You're friggin' red-baiting? You, who set the bar lower and lower in your willingness to associate with all forms of corruption and thuggery to promote your radical right-wing agenda, have the audacity to engage in McCarthyism?

Simply pathetic.

And one more thing: Unless Tom DeLay proves me wrong, he is a bimetallist.

Labels: Barack Obama, McCarthyism, Politics, Tom DeLay

Today, I'm proud to say I'm a Californian, even if I only lived there for four years.

The CA Supreme Court did the right thing and ruled for marriage equality, confirming the right of all people to marry the man or woman of their choice.

In doing so, CA follows the lead of Massachusetts, who affirmed gay marriage several years ago. And I'm sure the CA Supreme Court was emboldened by the MA decision. Contrary to the bloviations of Christian Right nutjobs, Massachusetts has not collapsed into a sea of anarchy, nor has it been struck by a meteor, a hurricane, an earthquake, or any other form of natural disaster. In fact, since they legalized gay marriage, teams from MA have won the World Series twice. (Maybe that's what reversed the Curse of the Bambino.)

Now we need the other 48 states in the Union to follow California's lead. Time to make marriage equality the law throughout the United States of America. Illinois should go next; if they legalize in the next few months, maybe the Cubs will win the Series this year.

Labels: California, GLBT Rights, Politics

The University of Michigan - half an hour from where I went to high school - has long been considered one of the best public universities in the country. It accepts a much higher tier of student than other public universities, mostly because it can: its faculty and research facilities are top-notch.

I don't know how much longer that's going to last, now that the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the anti-gay amendment passed by the voters several years ago prohibits the University, or any other State organization, from providing domestic partner benefits. Not only will this make it harder for UM to hire GLBT faculty - who are some of the top scholars in many fields - but it'll make GLBT-friendly straight people like me think twice about working there as well.

I'm told that Michigan voters really, really didn't intend for this anti-gay amendment to actually hurt gay people in any way; it's time for them to put their money where their mouths are and repeal the amendment. Better yet, do what you should have done in the first place and extend full civil rights to GLBT citizens, including the right to marry whomever they want.

If this is permitted to continue, don't be surprised to see yet more jobs and more employers saying No! to Michigan. Progressive companies - you know, those high-tech companies you're trying to get to move to the Big Hand - tend to have GLBT people in high places, and they won't look kindly on a state that doesn't seem to look too kindly on their existence.

Labels: GLBT Rights, Michigan, Politics

...but why is the anti-abortion PAC National Right to Life robocalling Indiana voters urging them to vote against Barack Obama tomorrow, when Obama and Clinton are indistinguishable on choice issues?

Possibly for the same reason Rush Limbaugh is urging his audience to vote for Hillary Clinton? (Warning: Link goes to Rush Limbaugh's site. Do not click link after, or before, eating.)

National Right to Life members - are you sure you want your PAC to be associated with Rush Limbaugh's loathsome dirty politics campaign? Isn't NRL supposed to be a Christian group?

Time to get on those phones.

Labels: Abortion, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, National Right to Life, Politics, Rush Limbaugh

...because this is ironic.



I'll probably be updating about this often for another few weeks... it's crunch time and I have way too much to do.

Labels: Politics

Which of these is more condescending?

A) A political candidate from a single-parent family who grew up in difficult circumstances talks about the challenges facing rural communities, including the loss of jobs and broken promises from politicians, and notes that they've given up on the economy and vote on social issues; or...

B) Candidate A's opponent who, upon hearing those comments, presumes that said voters are too stupid and ignorant to understand Candidate A's intention or actual message and panders to said voters by pretending to come from a down-home background where she went hunting all the time, despite the obviousness of this biographical exaggeration.

Please state your answer in the form of a question, just for fun.

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Primary Election 2008

This Mike Wallace interview with Reinhold Niebuhr in 1958 is remarkable for two reasons. The first is that, of course, Niebuhr was a brilliant man, and his deep reflections on politics, theology, religion, and culture are an excellent model for contemporary thinkers. The second is that this was aired on television in 1958. Take note of the long single shots, the complete sentences, the deep and probing questions of Mike Wallace, the obvious engagement by both people in a deep conversation about the issues of the day. Where is this on television today?

Labels: Politics, Religion

Well. Here we are on the second-to-last day of March and the primary race is still happening. I can honestly say that I didn't expect it to last this long; I thought one candidate or the other would get a knockout blow in one of the early races, or on Superdupertuesday, or in the Potomacs, or on March 4. But the tenacity of Hillary Clinton in staying in this race long after Barack Obama, were he in Clinton's position, would have faced a tsunami of demands to drop out, is impressive.

Unfortunately, much as I loathe the contemporary practice of psychoanalyzing political figures, this race really does come down to exactly why Hillary Clinton is still in the race and what her motivations are. Now, I'm not going to join the growing chorus of people who are saying she should drop out, but in all honesty, I think that if she doesn't absolutely clean up in Pennsylvania, winning by more than 20%, she should seriously consider it.

So why is Hillary Clinton still in this? Let's go through the possibilities.

• She thinks she can still win a contested nomination. She's indicated that she wants to take this all the way to Denver where she'll challenge the DNC not seating the illegitimate Florida and Michigan delegates. Now, there's an extent to which every candidate says that they're in it all the way - Edwards said this after South Carolina before promptly dropping out - but for the moment, we should take her at her word. The problem is that for her to win the nomination would require her to convince the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate count and likely the popular vote as well - which would split the party in two and probably lead to her defeat in November. End result: Hillary Clinton still isn't President. And she's a smart enough politician to realize this.


• She wants a deal. It's not without precedent that a primary opponent get something out of the eventual winner; the most famous of these might be Earl Warren who threw his support to Ike in 1952 and was nominated to be Chief Justice. This drawn-out primary fight might be Hillary Clinton's way of getting leverage for another job - perhaps the next vacant slot on the Supreme Court, perhaps governor of New York, perhaps Senate Majority Leader. Of all the options, I like this one the most; as long as she isn't undermining President Obama's legislative agenda, she could be a major long-term force in progressive politics. Much as I may loathe her from time to time, I really do think she could be a really effective legislative, judicial, or executive powerhouse for years - or decades - to come.


• She's going out gracefully. Just one more win in Pennsylvania to make her supporters and fundraisers feel like she isn't being chased out of the race and she'll quit. This doesn't hold water for me, though, mostly because of the complete lack of grace she's demonstrated even over the past few weeks. Her husband's veiled attack on Obama's patriotism, her own attempt to resuscitate the Wright kerfluffle, and reports of Rove-esque attempts to disenfranchise en masse Obama-supporting delegates in Texas make it clear that going out gracefully doesn't seem to be in the cards.


• She's waiting for Obama to self-destruct. Over and over, the Clinton campaign insinuated to anyone who would listen that Obama wasn't "vetted"; my guess is that the "vetting" of which they spoke was the Wright flap, which Barack handled with the greatest of aplomb and dexterity. Or maybe they've got something else up their sleeve. Or maybe they're just waiting for him to slip up and say something damningly stupid - which would be very uncharacteristic of him. Either way, this is a longshot, and doesn't seem to be happening for the same reason the "going out gracefully" tactic doesn't seem to be happening - the Clinton campaign is attacking all over the place, and the last thing the Clintons would want would be to be blamed for an Obama self-destruction.


• This is really, really personal. Of all the possible options, this is the one that scares me the most. It's no secret that Hillary Clinton has wanted to be president for a long time, nor is it any secret that she'll probably be too old to run in 2016, current geriatric candidates notwithstanding. This was supposed to be her turn; the establishment was on her side and set up February 5 to be her knockout blow. But along comes this upstart junior Senator with a lot of hope, an amazing organization, an inspiring candidacy, and the skill to take advantage of her campaign's (unforced) errors and steps on her dream. If this has gotten personal for her - if she's as pissed at Barack Obama as many of her supporters on the blogs are - this is only going to get uglier. And if it gets too much uglier, especially if it becomes clearer (as it will) that Obama's going to be the nominee, she's going to be persona non grata in the Democratic Party.


• She's running for 2012. A month ago, I would have dismissed this offhand as tinfoil hat stuff, but now I'm not so sure. She and her husband have certainly been effusive in their praise for John McCain. Is it possible that she's trying to kneecap Barack so that he loses the general in 2008 and she can ride in on the gleaming white horse in 2012? At the moment, I'd still consider this a