Judgement: Sarah Palin

Judgement (or the lack thereof):

Judgement has been a large topic in this campaign cycle and it rears it's head again in John McCain's VP pick Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin: Vetted with a fine tooth comb? I don't think so...

First, I want to start out saying that I do not think Sarah Palin is a bad person. I think she should be commended for the rise to power that she's orchestrated and she is a testament on how far we've come with allowing women to be in Government.

John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential nominee. He used his judgement when he picked her. He thought about this pick for Days, Weeks, maybe even months (at least we hope he did, right?). He vetted each nominee with a fine tooth comb. He weighed all of the pros, cons for each person on his "short list." Then he picked Sarah Palin?

John McCain only met Sarah Palin ONCE in person before picking her as his choice for Vice President! ONCE!? He vetted her with a fine tooth comb? I don't think so. Let me say some more on this because I want it hammered into every one's brains. John McCain met Sarah Palin ONCE before choosing her as his Vice President.

Wait a second... That's like me meeting someone for the first time, spending the day with them and then letting them watch my children for a week while I go away on vacation. All that after only having met the person one time. Would anyone in their right mind do that? Not a chance!!! Was Sarah Palin vetted with a fine tooth comb? I DON'T THINK SO.

But wait... then we found out that Sarah's teenage daughter was pregnant roughly 1 day after John McCain himself found out. Vetted with a fine tooth comb? I don't think so. That's right people, Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant. Does that show good judgement? Does that show that Sarah Palin is the type of parent that teaches her children good judgement? My personal opinion is NO. This re-enforces the idea that Sarah Palin was nothing but a Hail Mary pass that John McCain decided to throw in hopes his receivers (the American public) would catch it for him. I'm not catching that pass.

Sarah Palin: Under Investigation, good judgement? I don't think so...

Oh no...there's more? Sarah Palin is under investigation. That's right folks, John McCain picked a former beauty queen runner-up for VP that is also under investigation with her own state. You see, Mrs. Palin tried to use her position to have someone fired. Well wait...let's give her the benefit of the doubt on what she says. Let's just say that "one of her staffers" tried to have someone fired for not firing a State Trooper that was married to Palin's sister. So would you say that the "staffers" used proper Judgement?

Of course not!

So what does that mean? Well, let's see...if you're the boss and someone under you screws up, ultimately it's your fault for not guiding them properly. You see, Palin's boss is the entire state of Alaska (the one investigating her). In this case, her "staffers" (I still think Sarah Palin ordered this herself) screwed up and used POOR JUDGEMENT. However, that judgement was handed down through Sarah Palin (she picks her staff). It should be noted that apparently Sarah Palin used POOR JUDGEMENT in picking out her staff. This assumes that what she says is true...and that her staff were the ones trying to have people fired...not her.

Conclusion: Sarah Palin...BAD JUDGEMENT.

My final thought on this is clear. John McCain used bad judgement in picking Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin did not teach her daughter good judgement. Sarah Palin did not use good judgement when picking out her staff. Sarah Palin's staff did not use good judgement when trying to use the Governer's office to have people fired.

The crap trickles up people... and it trickles up to the top of the ticket.

I'll end with something funny:

Sarah's Choice

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP candidate has Karl Rove written all over it. It was never an attempt to reach out to disgruntled Hillary supporters, who can smell pandering a mile away.
Republicans know they can't run on their record, they can't run on the war, the environment, the economy, most Americans are also coming to realize their drill-and-burn energy policy has no future in it; what happens when we use up all the oil in the off shore wells and the Arctic refuge?
What Sarah Palin does is bring the "values" issues front and center. She is the Republican male's wet dream, a non-threatening beauty queen who likes to hang around and do guy stuff, she hunts and fishes, her husband is a roughneck, and races snowmobiles; a right religious woman, who kept her baby, even though he was diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. Hillary supporters aren't impressed, but look at how she is polling among working class men.
Instead of following the red herring, Dems would do well to take a play out of the Rove book, and challenge Ms. Palin on her "strengths." Her weaknesses will manifest themselves. And there are weaknesses: lack of experience, lack of preparation, no foreign policy, a brewing abuse of power scandal to name a few.

She is a reformer, who took on corruption in her own party, big ouil, and the "old boys network?"
Bravo! This is the minimum we expect out of our politicians: they govern competently, and keep their hands out of the till. She is a welcome change from the culture of corruption we have seen in Washington the last eight years, but is that really enough when she still supports the same failed policies of Bush/McCain. Praise her for her integrity, but keep her feet to the fire on the real issues.

Her son is in Iraq. Commendable. More politicians kids should be in the army. But does she have a plan for ending the war in Iraq? Or does she support the Republican policy of endless war?

She carried her Downs baby to term. Wonderful. She made the right choice for herself. She had lots of support while making this choice, from her family, her church. Pro-choice supporters never maintain it is an easy choice. Women agonize over this choice, which is as it should be. In addition to questions of faith and consciousness, women consider their financial and health care situations when faced with a Downs pregnancy.
With five children, Sarah Palin was out of the work force for months at a time. I don't know what kind of health care she had as mayor of a small city (I assume she had coverage as governor) but one of the rocks she could rely on was her husband's good paying, union job, with a living wage and health care benefits. So, how does she feel about the Bush/McCain health care plan? Does she support their anti-family, anti-worker, anti-union agenda?

This challenge can be done without resorting to the Republican character assassination. Just hold her feet to the fire on these real issues, chip away at her neo-con cred, then let her fall on her face in a debate with Joe Biden, and she will be history.

He said, She said - A Tale of Two Views

I had a friend of mine (We'll call him Joe) email me an article that sparked a debate that shows the true differences between us Progressives and the empathetic Conservatives (I hope you detected sarcasm). My other friend (We'll call her Monica) got involved when I emailed her after Joe made a statement that finally put into words exactly how I felt.

I will now share with you this argument, in it's entirety for you to enjoy. I will begin with my response to the article Joe sent me regarding McCain's statment that $5 million is what he considers "rich."

The Argument:

From: Dan
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:40 PM
To: 'Joe'
Subject: RE: McCain's $5 Million dollar mistake.

Not bad. And I do think McCain was stupid to throw out that number. With $15,000 being the poverty line, $5 million is obviously WAY off on what would economically be considered 'rich.'

My personal opinion is someone making above $300,000 a year is rich. What's your opinion?

Progressive Response:

From: Joe
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:30 PM
To: 'Dan'
Subject: RE: McCain's $5 Million dollar mistake.

Without going in to too much detail, primarily because most of America is feeling the pinch right now, I think anyone that makes enough to never have to worry about getting the best bargain, is rich. There are many rich people that always look for the best bargain, but they don’t have to. I’m talking about people, families that have to find the best deals so that they can put food on the table. With that said, I actually think Obama had this one right; I think a family (4 members) that makes $250K doesn’t have to worry about such things.

One last note, we don’t truly know what poor is. There are hard working people in our own community that don’t make enough to feed their families, and they are still richer than 80% of the world.

We should all pay taxes and we should all stop trying to weasel our way out of it. I think we should have a tax system that gradually increases in percentage as the income grows and the deductions should be reduced to almost nothing. I believe the percentage should increase as the income grows because I love Spiderman, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” We do have a responsibility to take care of each other; to ensure a future for those that follow behind us. The more you are given, the more you should give. As for tax deductions, get rid of them. If you want to have kids, fantastic-it’s your choice, but why should that be a tax deduction? If you want to give to your favorite charity, fantastic-it’s your choice, but why should that be a tax deduction? If the stock you invested in lost a bundle, I’m sorry-but it was your choice, but why should the government give you a tax deduction? Make it simple.

This is the part where I sent Joe's response to Monica as a testament to exactly how I felt.

Conservative Response: (Monica)

I totally agree with SOME of what he is saying tax-wise. That's why the Fair Tax works- it takes away all the credits and loopholes. Take some time to read about the Fair Tax. It's not a flat tax.

Seriously, I want you to understand why I so strongly disagree with you about these things. America was founded on the idea that the INDIVIDUAL, born to nothing, can make something of themselves in this country- whether they choose to or not is their CHOICE. There is strong incentive in the US to WORK and do well for yourself because there are REWARDS for that financially. That is what makes a strong economy and makes America a wonderful place to live. If you take that away- meaning tax people more for being successful, basically punishing them, you RUIN that. What is the point of educating yourself, being entrepreneurial, taking risks, starting companies, etc. if the gov't is just going to take it away from you? We ALL enjoy the lifestyle we have in this country b/c of capitalism and b/c of the "high achievers" that make more than 250K. I suggest reading up on what's happened in Cuba since it became a communist state. No one works- what's the point???

The top 1% of earners pay 40% of federal taxes collected (IRS data). Why is that not enough?

This country is full of complainers- it's "what can my country do for me?" time. They have cell phones, highlights, new cars, computers, the list goes on and then complain about $4.00 gas. The problem isn't the economy. The problem is people spending above their means and not saving. No one wants to take responsibility for themselves. They would, instead, rather look to the gov't to solve their "problems". These people used to be a small fraction of society, but no longer. Instead, we have a faction of people who can't make good financial decisions in their own lives that think they can elect a President to do it for them. Yes, those are the folks that should be deciding who the President is, right??? (NO)

Why should it be the gov'ts responsibility to decide when I make "enough"??? What is enough?? Why 250K, why not 150K, or just 50K?? Unreal....how can the gov't, or anyone else for that matter, decide when I make enough not to "worry" or " have to find a bargain"??? IT/ THEY SHOULDN'T.

And as for the poor/ disadvantaged you like to speak of. The Jones family has given over $5000 so far this year to charity. Not to mention what we give at church that goes to community outreach, food banks, etc. Don't think we're "stingy" conservatives!!! How about you?

I'd like to leave you with a few of my favorite quotes, b/c it's said far better than I could. And sorry, I believe that EVERYONE should take personal responsibility for themselves (unless a child or mentally/ physically disabled). Nothing will ever change my mind about that, therefore I will vote REPUBLICAN and we can agree to disagree.

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Alexander Tyler on the fall of the Athenian empire.

And one more thing...
"the more you are given"??? As in, people who earn more than the "average" person didn't really have to "work" for it. I love it....
like those people owe a greater debt to society b/c they are successful? NO- they drive the same roads, are protected by the same military, etc.
Hey- how about instead- "those that earn less, have less"???? Otherwise, it's just socialism.

Progressive Response: Dan

Our government has created more wealth since its inception than all other countries combined in history. That was created due to an educated upper class society deciding to help out those less fortunate. The choices that were made for the good of society...not for the good of the ONE. This choice thing you keep bringing up isn't a valid argument to me because society creates circumstance and circumstance, in a lot of cases (such as you and I), creates wealth. Your children and my children will be better off than most in the entire country because of our place in society's middle to upper class.

Maybe if you or I were born into poverty with 10 brothers and sisters who's father had left we may have grown up differently. Sure each child still has a CHANCE to be great...but too many generations of poverty stricken people have not allowed EVERYONE to be great like you think. Some people have no choice. That's just the way it is and you can't ever tell me otherwise.

Let's also not forget another important fact...not everyone is as bright as everyone else. We have different brains...different levels of education... some are born gifted...some LEARN to be gifted. On the other hand...some people are born stupid...and yes, some LEARN to be stupid (generally because of poor parenting or a poor education system).

You give money to Charity? That's great, so do I. Does everyone? NO. How about most everyone? NO. Why? Usually, because they can't AFFORD IT. Most of the rich that I know only give the allotted amount that you can claim on your taxes. Sure that's great...but they are doing it for the wrong reasons. I'm certainly not saying you are because I know that isn't true. I just feel your fundamental argument has no merit because of my need for a capitalistic/socialistic environment instead of just plain capitalism.

Just don't pretend we're all equal and all have EQUAL chances in life. We aren't and we don't and we never will in our lifetime.

p.s. I love how the republicans are attacking Barack Obama's tax plan calling it the "welfare tax plan." Why are they calling it this? Because it gives tax breaks to the poor and the middle class INSTEAD OF THEM. I'm a member of the middle class who lives paycheck to paycheck because of the investments I put away for later + Salvation Army monthly donations.. I'd certainly like a better cushion than I have now and Obama's tax plan will provide that for me.

Also here is Joe's response below. One thing to keep in mind is that the total income of his family is likely less than $80K/yr. Makes yours and my donations seem pretty insignificant doesn't it? :-) My wife and I operate on less than $80K/year and it would kill us to give that much. Kudos to Joe and his family for making that sacrifice.

Progressive Response: Joe

With all that being said, we don’t have a FairTax system, and my previous comments regarding simplification were in regard to working within the parameters of our current system. I am for capitalism. If a person’s goal in life is to make money, let him, but not at the expense of someone whose goal in life is to serve society in a less lucrative career, such as law enforcement, teaching, or even retirement plan administration (HA). I do not favor communism or socialism; the less government interference, the better. But, we have to draw the line. The government does have a responsibility to serve all and do so for the greater societal good.

America was founded on the ideal that all men are created equal… liberty… blah, blah, blah, but truly we all know that not everyone has the same opportunities. How many times have you been “rewarded” for who you know? How many times have you been in the right place at the right time? I agree we have a problem with complacency in our country. I don’t however believe that complacency is the root of the problem. Somehow, a path that leads to self sufficiency needs to visible to people. Most people don’t see this. They look around and if they’re fortunate enough to see past the “projects” what they see is the “rich” getting richer. An infinitesimal percentage of poor children are recipients of “who you know” or “right place” opportunities. These comments are being made solely on economic status; there are countless others as it relates to race, religion, gender, etc…

No one should decide when anyone makes “enough.” It should be a personal choice. The inherent problem with that is that people won’t make that choice. All people have their problems and, in general, those that have money give a smaller percentage of that wealth to the benefit of society than do those that don’t have money. Even if Ted Turner gives a 60 million dollars to the UN, that’s only about 3% of his net worth. I know poor people that regularly give a much larger percentage to church and charities, frequently. Does Ted’s gift make a difference? Absolutely. Would more be used for the good of society if his wealth was divided amongst more people? I don’t know, for sure. Not every one would be a good steward of that kind of money, and there are many rich people who fit these criteria. My point in this segment is, the government’s obligation is to set the bar. I believe the bar can be set such that a capitalistic minded individual with the opportunity can pay a gradually larger percentage of what it takes to run the government and still live comfortably and/or luxuriously. And at the same time provide less of a burden on those who, in general, haven’t been afforded the opportunities or who aren’t capitalistically minded.

I know very little of Ayn Rand, of which you quote. I do know that she cared very little about reaching out to those less fortunate and she opposed government aid. As a result, I would not expect a quote by her to support my primary reason for everything I’ve said above. How about reading Luke 18:18-25 to see what Jesus has to say about it? Give, and give till it hurts, which I believe is completely contrary to Rand’s point of view.

By the way, I don’t know how much $5K means to your family, but my family has given more than $6K during this calendar year, not to mention our non-monetary commitments of time and other resources.

As for the quote by Alexander Tyler, he name was actually made by Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler, and there is no record of The Fall of the Athenian Empire. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp. It states, “In no case was text identified that was remotely similar in words or intent to the alleged Tyler quote.” But to the point that you agree with the statement, OK, but I believe that we, all of civilization, have the power to break such a mold, if we chose to take care of each other.

So, have we solved a problem? Probably not, but please poke holes in my logic. My goal is not to prove anyone wrong but to find out how we can improve each other.

Conservative Response: Monica

Yeah, all that "society" crap is just that- crap. Tell that to any poor kid who MADE HIMSELF into a billionaire.

As I stated before, the "richest" people in this country pay the VAST majority of all taxes. The "middle class" pay very little tax- so Obama pandering to those financial dimwits, well, they don't pay anything ANYWAY, so giving them a break is really quite redundant. It shouldn't be up to the gov't whether or not people have "given" enough or make enough and at the end of day, if you believe in the redistribution of wealth, you are a SOCIALIST.

I also failed to mention what SBG gives to charity, so if we're counting dollar for dollar.....shall I mention my hours as a Guardian Ad Litem, too? Please....
I will not address how much I earn.That's b/t me and the IRS (unfortunately). I have taken advantage of opportunities I earned, taken risks, spent many years in higher education and I DESERVE what I earn. I am not a schoolteacher, a firefighter BECAUSE I know what they EARN and I want to earn more. If you choose to be one of those, then that is your CHOICE- live with it. I sell insurance. Why? Because it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside? NO- because it affords me the lifestyle I want to lead. MY CHOICE. I think that is what Rand is saying- YOUR MONEY, YOUR CHOICE.

The gov't should have ONE function and that is to keep me safe/ keep the Russians (well, the Taliban) from invading. It is NOT to take my money and give it to someone else. Oh, yeah, let's divide Ted Turner's wealth amongst the people. What would you do with your DOLLAR???
Obama- all I'll say is that to win, he has to get the least common denominator to vote for him- all those on welfare, all those slackers making minimum wage b/c they WOULDN'T go to college, all those having kids they can't afford. He has to get those people to come vote for him to win. Yeah, that's NOT the boat I want to be in. I expect more of myself. I have more respect for myself. So, by assuring his "followers" he will take more from the rich and give it to them- that IS a welfare state.

You can't say "I'm for less gov't" - oh, unless it applies to me. Those people with more money than me, that's who I mean!! Nope, doesn't work that way.
Society is filled with people that believe they are owed something, or people that believe the RICH owe someone something. There is absolutely no accountability.

So, you either believe that the gov't has the right to take your money and give it to someone else, or you don't. I DON'T. So, I don't think we'll "solve" anything.

I am not a socialist. I believe in the right to accumulate as much wealth as you want and to spend it as you like. I believe in a free market and free society.
My grandfather said the best days of this country are behind us. I used to not believe that. Now I do. There are too many people with their hand out, too many wanting to "punish" those doing better than themselves. How sad and GREEDY.

I've enjoyed reading Joe's writing. I'm not sure who he is but he's very eloquent. I agree with him that people can and should do more for those that have less. That is the Christian way. However, it's not a gov'ts job to make sure they do.

A quote I can substantiate-
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" [Dosteovsky's 'Grand Inquisitor']- maybe the mantra for the Democratic party????

Progressive Response: Dan

It's really sad the things you say Monica. You certainly didn't used to be like this. I can only think that you making decent money (what Obama would consider rich, not McCain) caused the view you have...I certainly hope money never does that to me. If me not minding helping the less fortunate through government means makes me a socialist, then so be it.

This government was created for the people, by the people. The statue of Liberty says to "bring us your tired, your poor." It's really sad that at least 26% of America (those that still approve of Bush) have lost their way in all respects of helping those less fortunate...and yes even the lazy few who keep their hands out when they should not.

Progressive Response: Joe

Obviously, we are on different pages, maybe even different books. But I think, at least, we’re in the same library. Clearly we are not going to see eye to eye. As such, I would like to take but one of your statements for comment: “I am not a schoolteacher, a firefighter BECAUSE I know what they EARN and I want to earn more. If you choose to be one of those, then that is your CHOICE- live with it. I sell insurance. Why? Because it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside? NO- because it affords me the lifestyle I want to lead. MY CHOICE.”

I made a similar choice as you did when I was in school. I wanted a career that would provide financial security; not leave me short on cash. Fortunately, I believe I have come to respect these less lucrative positions, all the more, since making my career decision. I want to live a modest life, without worry if I will be able to make a critical financial decision such as, to feed my family or fix my car, so that I can get to work to feed my family… Consequently, I think for a strong society that supports itself, including insurance sales, we need school teachers, firefighters, other public service industries, even garbage collectors. Particularly, as it relates to teachers, directly affecting our children, influencing the future, don’t you want the best qualified individuals. Do you really think that you deserve more money selling insurance than the best teacher that you had in school? Do we not have a responsibility to ensure that these professions receive the right people for the job? I know now that I could not excel in those industries because it takes a special gift to do extremely well.

Mathematically speaking a personal making $100K a year could be taxed 50% and still take home 36% more than a person making $25K at 28% tax rate. We don’t have a 50% tax rate. I used this just for absurdity purposes. Let’s just agree that you do work hard and deserve every penny. Let’s look at the “rich” in general. I don’t know the statistics, but my guess is that most people who have such incomes, don’t actually earn it, but they inherit or sponge off dad. So I’m not only talking about the Ted Turners, but so many more. So, it’s easy to say the poor of the world are slackers and don’t earn what they should because they don’t work for it. I say, there are so many that “earn” much, much more than they deserve that putting their money to better use could encourage people and actually allow the government to help, train, free them from poverty.

Do I wish for less government? Absolutely. But there are so many people that abuse their wealth that if it wasn’t for the government doing something that our country would turn into one such as Haiti or Cuba, where there are only two economic classes: a country where 1% of the population has 99% of the wealth.

In case Jesus’ command to give, in the Luke passage I used before, doesn’t resonate, consider Proverbs 27:17, “As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend.” We’re here for each other.

--------------- End Argument

Conclusion:

As you can see there are vast differences between the core thought process of a Progressive and the core thought process of a Conservative. While I am obviously in the Progressive camp it doesn't mean that I cannot share with you the values of a conservative.

If you agree with the Conservative side of the argument then that is your right. After all, we are a free nation, not because of Democrats, Republicans, Progressives or Conservatives, but because of the American spirit that embodies everyone and everything around us.

I would love to hear your thoughts and/or continuation of the argument.

McCain's "Cross in the Sand" stump story stolen.

John McCain: the maverick? the story teller? the liar? the thief? You decide.

While I respect John McCain's service record and feel for him as a former POW, I can't help but be angry about his obvious plagiarist patterns. Not only has he plagiarised speeches with information from Wikipedia but now appears to have stolen a story from a former Siberian prisoner from Russia, Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Here is Alexander's story:

"Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian author who spent many years in the gulag of Siberia, bears witness to the power of the cross. After long suffering in the work camp of Siberia, he fell into despair. Like other prisoners, he had worked in the fields day after day, in rain and sun, during summer and winter. His days were filled with backbreaking labor and slow starvation. On a particular day, the hopelessness of his situation became too much. He saw no reason to continue living, to continue fighting the system. He thought that the rest of his life was meaningless since he would most likely die in this Siberian prison. His life made no difference in the world. So he gave up.

Laying his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude work-site bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to many other prisoners.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly, he lifted his eyes and saw a skinny, old prisoner squat down next to him. The man said nothing. Instead, he drew a stick through the ground at Solzhenitsyn’s feet, tracing the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the sign of the Cross, his entire perspective changed. He knew that he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet in that moment, he knew that there was something greater than the evil that he saw in the prison, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that the hope of all mankind was represented in that simple Cross. And through the power of the Cross, anything was possible."

This charge gained legs when Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan decided to come out with his own ideas about the “cross in the sand” story from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. John McCain’s attempt at "shared Christian fellowship" with his North Vietnamese prison guard story is merely a distant image of Solzenistyn's story and is nothing but pandering. I find it very odd that McCain did not begin reciting this story until 1999 even though he had run many campaigns before that. Perhaps it's because Solzenistyn's story did not get published until 1997?

Here is McCain's story:

"It was Christmas day, we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes, and those days we were not allowed to see or communicate with each other although we certainly did. And I was standing outside for my few minutes, outside my cell. He came walking up. He stood there for a minute and with his handle [sandal?] on the dirt in the courtyard he drew a cross and he stood there and a minute later, he rubbed it out and walked away. For a minute there, there as just two Christians worshiping together. I’ll never forget that moment…"

The similarities of these two stories are too close to overlook. Not to mention he did not even mention this story in his full disclosure account of the Vietnamese POW camp that he wrote in 1973.

This is the man running for president as the Maverick? There truly are 3 candidates this election...Barack Obama, Old John McCain and Older John McCain. I could give Older John McCain much credit for trying to stave off a horrible Bush presidency. He did not thanks to some well placed ads LYING and claiming he had an illegitimate ethnic child. Yet he continue to support Bush and even had a nice picture hugging him:

Let's all remember what this man's been through to make it to the Senate of the United States. But, let's also remember what he's done since he got there. He's lied, he's not educated himself properly on Iraq and Economic Policy, and worst of all, he's cheated on his first wife while trying to claim high moral ground along with the rest of the Republicans' "Contract for America".

I cannot, in good conscious, vote this man into office as our next president.

We need change, we need better economic policies, we need the world looking upon us with admiration, we need less war hawking and more peace talking, we need a more thought provoking presence, we need Barack Obama in 2008.

Say it Ain't so, John

Just once, I'd like to hear a politician say, "Yes, I slept with that woman. Thanks to you guys, the wife found out, and now both of them have cut me off. I'm sorry I let everyone down." I swear, he'd get my vote, regardless of party.
I was an early Edwards supporter, and was absolutely stunned when he finally admitted to an affair last Friday. I always liked Edwards, from the time I first heard his Two America's speech. In one of the few examples of fighting back against the rant-wing smear machine during the 2004 election, when the Republicans trotted out the "trial lawyer" argument, Edwards countered by bringing out actual cases he had argued; innocent victim vs. large corporation, and that line of attack stopped.
John, why were you thinking with your dick? Your wife already knew, and you were working it out with her. Just as there were cheers on the floor of the NYSE when Eliot Spitzer fell, the rant-wing bloggers are going nuts. This "proves" the liberal bias of the mainstream media. Never mind the media is giving McCain a pass on this very subject, when his infidelities were on a scale comparable to Edwards for sleaze, but that's beside the point.
The news media were getting close last year, maybe that explains why you dropped out of the primary the week before Super Tuesday. Why couldn't you have made your announcement then. By all accounts, your wife had already found out, and you were working it out. It may have saved your political career. You would have lost the nomination, but saved your integrity; paid the child support from your own pockets instead of campaign funds (which I am sure will be the next thing exposed in the investigation) and who knows, in a few years, made a comeback.
In retrospect, I'm glad you did drop out when you did. It would have been a Republican wet dream to have this news come out after you became the party's nominee. I still think they were only sitting on the story until after you made a keynote speech at the Democratic convention. Thank God the National Enquirer forced your hand. This even gave you the opportunity to utilize an old Bush/Rove trick: announce the bad news on a Friday.

John McCain - A YouTube Flip-Flopper Event

John McCain - Flip-Flopper for the ages:
A YouTube Review

Abortion: Ahhh the greatest of great wedge issues; abortion. This is a defining issue that seperates the liberals (right to choose) from the conservatives (no rights at all). McCain leads the charge on flip flopping even with this seemingly simple issue for him to have a stance on.

Bush policies: Let's start out with one of my favorites...John McCain on George W. Bush's policies and then again... John McCain on Bush's policies. Don't ya just LOVE this guy?



Confederate Flag: Here's a nice rarely known flip flop of McCain on his view of the Confederate Flag. It's too bad we don't have him on video for the first quote...but this IS true.



Ethanol: McCain with yet another flipflop...this time on an energy source. Tim Russert (God rest his soul) does a great job on this and it's really worth a look.



Ethics Reform: Here's a nice Flip flop from McSame that shows he can't even have a solid stance on ethics reform or pandering.

Gay Marriage: A great McCain Flip flop...he actually flips his stance on Gay Marriage within the SAME interview. What a guy!



Hamas: Indeed the Hamas political win is a tricky situation. It's tough to come down hard on a democratically elected terrorist group when it is achieved USING our very own democratic policies. However... Flipflopping on the subject certainly doesn't help things...and as we've learned John McCain is an expert at the flippity flop.



Immigration: There is no doubt that Immigration is an extremely complicated issue that will likely leave many with a bad taste in their mouth no matter which side you're on. However, if you're John McCain you can just have it both ways!



Off-Shore Oil Drilling & Windfall Profit Tax: Here's a great one with a favorite of mine John Cafferty of CNN. Poor Cafferty doesn't get as much play as he used to...likely because he is extremely hard on the Bush administration. Enjoy.



Religious Right: Here's one I never would have thought possible...McCain's ORIGINAL view was to be against 'Agents of Intolerance' which is a code word for "Religious Nutjob." Surprisingly he went and saw Falwell who if you simply google him will lead you down a path of direct intolerance towards Gay people and even Katrina victims.



Tax Cuts: Mr. Russert does an excellent job here showing yet another John McCain flip flop. This time we target the Bush Tax Cuts...something John McCain clearly is in favor of now.



Timetable for Withdrawal: This one surprised me...I never thought I would hear the word Timetable come out of McCain's mouth...yet it did? I'm giving you this one in 2 parts. Part 1 is from The Young Turks and I'm only putting it here because it is my favorite morning show, shown on Air America radio via XM.

Part1:

Part2:


Torture: Yes McCain, who has a tortured past with the Vietnamese, would even go against his own experience and Flip Flop on Torture. First he's against it, then he's for it, then he's against it. What a guy! You'd think this issue would be easy for him, wouldn't you?



Unfortunately, there are actually a few more Flip flops I could post here...but I don't want the blog post to take too long to come up for those who may still be on dial-up.

There are many reasons to support Barack Obama...and the above are just a few.

Do me and every other progressive voice out there a favor...if you start hearing about how Obama is a "flip-flopper" and is as bad as John Kerry or any other such nonsense...please feel free to send them here for a small taste of what a REAL flip-flopper looks like.

Ted Stevens... Advanced Internet User... INDICTED.

Ted "The Internet is a NOT a truck...it's a series of tubes" Stevens was indicted today in what looks like a typical republican "I make a ton of money but still prefer someone else pay for it" scandal that I've been salivating over for the last few hours.

Can this man who knows the internet SO WELL (He headed up the Internet Neutrality Commission) possibly have any wrong doing? Here's a clip of what he said about the internet and then a story from CBS News I found a good read:

Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens




CBS News:

Beleaguered congressional Republicans woke up Tuesday morning thinking they’d gained traction with their focus on offshore oil drilling and hoping that they could pin the “culture of corruption” on Democrats.

By lunchtime, the longest-serving Republican senator in history had been indicted on charges that he hid $250,000 in gifts from an oil company looking for favors.

Can it get any worse for the GOP?

“This is very bad for the party,” a retiring Senate Republican told Politico as news of Ted Stevens’ indictment echoed across Capitol Hill on Tuesday. “The timing on this couldn’t be worse.”

One year ago today, Stevens pleaded with his Republican colleagues to “stay with me” as he rode out a Justice Department investigation and an FBI raid on his Alaska home.

Now, there’s an arrest warrant out for the 84-year-old senator. He’s been stripped of his top committee rankings. His iconic career is crumbling. His hopes for reelection are in serious doubt.

And Senate Republicans have no idea what to do about it.

GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was a congressional intern in 1964, when Stevens was planning his first run for the Senate. McConnell can’t and won’t ask a legend to resign, at least at this point.

The Senate ethics committee says it won’t do anything until the criminal case runs it course.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has left the ball in McConnell’s court, saying it’s “all up to [Republicans]” to decide how to handle Stevens.

Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the House Republican Conference chairman who had hoped to spend Tuesday blaming Barack Obama for Democratic inaction on energy, instead was left to argue that the indictment of the Senate’s most senior Republican was somehow “bad for both parties.”

The conservative National Review called for Stevens’ resignation. Democrats across the country called on their Republican opponents to return Stevens’ campaign contributions. Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican, used Stevens’ indictment to demand passage of legislation that would deny congressional pensions to members convicted of felonies.

Stevens proclaimed his innocence Tuesday, saying he “never knowingly submitted a false disclosure form required by law as a U.S. senator.” But the details laid out by the Department of Justice are blistering, suggesting a seven-year pattern of failing to disclose the “gifts” provided to the senator by the Alaska oil field services company VECO.

The indictment charges Stevens with failing to report on his financial disclosure forms $250,000 in “things of value” including remodeling work on his home, a Viking grill and a sweetheart deal on a Land Rover.

The indictment further alleges that “during the same time he was concealing his continued receipt of these things of value from VECO and [VECO executive Bill J.] Allen,” that Stevens “received solicitations for official actions from Allen and other VECO employees, and that Sen. Stevens used his position and office on behalf of VECO during that same time period.”

In exchange, according to the indictment, the oil services company asked Stevens for help with company projects in Pakistan and Russia, as well as a National Science Foundation grant to a VECO subsidiary.

Matthew Friedrich, the acting assistant attorney general, said that prosecutors have not been able to establish the quid pro quo necessary for bribery charges. However, he said that the investigation is ongoing.

Stevens has a reputation as a fighter, so he may very well launch a counterattack on the Justice case against him. His campaign has said it’s “full steam ahead” for the fall election, adding that Stevens’ office has been “flooded” with calls and e-mailsfrom supporters urging him to press on.

“The message from them is clear: Alaska needs Ted Stevens in the U.S. Senate.”

Stevens is a former Senate Appropriations Committee chairman who has funneled billions of dollars in earmarks and federal funds back to his home state, but he become the butt of jokes over the so-called “bridge to nowhere” earmark that became a symbol of Washington excess.

While he’s known in Washington for his explosive temper, Stevens is beloved in Alaska, where Republican Gov. Sarah Palin said Tuesday that news of the senator’s indictment had “rock[ed] the foundation of our state.”

“A lot of people here see him like he’s our uncle,” said McHugh Pierre, a spokesman for the Alaska Republican Party. “A lot of people want to help him” in his time of need, he added.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), a longtime Stevens friend, said he wasn’t surprised by the news because Stevens has been under investigation for so long. He said, however, that he believes Stevens is innocent.

Other senators responded with caution. “I need to learn more of the facts before I comment,” said Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). “I have the highest personal regard for him,” Warner added. “He is a strong man. He fought hard for his state, which he loved. All of us have unexpected moments in our career. All of us have to do our best to work through them. I wish him the best.”

Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, emerging from the Democrats’ weekly policy lunch, said there had been a “somber” reaction to word of Stevens’ indictment. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said he was saddened by the news.

Appearing on MSNBC on Tuesday afternoon, Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said that the indictment involves “a serious allegation” but insisted that it wouldn’t be a distraction from John McCain’s presidential campaign. “This presidential campaign will not be about the senior senator from Alaska,” Duncan said. “It’s going to be about big issues, about energy, about tax policy; it’s going to be about the future of America. This is a blip along the way.”

McCain, who has clashed repeatedly with Stevens in the past, issued no statement on the indictment.

Late Tuesday, an Appropriations Committee aide said that Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) will replace Stevens as ranking member on the Appropriation Committee’s Defense subcommittee “through the end of this Congress or until such time as Sen. Stevens is able to resume his duties as ranking member.”

Patrick O’Connor and Daniel W. Reilly contributed to this story.


By Martin Kady II and John Bresnahan
Copyright 2008 POLITICO