Clint Made My Day

POSTED BY JHW22

In all the discussions of the Clint Eastwood Chrysler "Halftime in America" ad, all the pundits keeps leaving out the fact that Clint is a big-time Republican. The fact that he did that ad, supporting Obama's policy on the auto bailout, and mimicking Obama's messaging from the State of the Union on "teamwork", says a lot. It says that some Republicans are ready to bring their party back from the fringes and work with the President for a better future. More of that sanity, please.

Answer to an excellent question

POSTED BY JHW22

In the comments of the previous post, one of our loyal readers, Vic, asked a question of Broadway Carl and me. How do we feel about the federal pay freeze? Rather than answering in a comment, I figured I'd make it a post. I'm feeling rather long-winded today and it's a point that deserves more discussion than I could provide in a comment. And I am over-due for a post anyway.

I am very supportive of Pres O, but I admit that there are moments when the doubting arguments start to make a dent - like today. What do you and Jennifer make of his salary freeze announcement? The perception that he always caves before he needs to is starting to get to me.

Vic used a key word, "perception". It is exactly THAT -- a perception. One of my consistent beefs is with the distortion of, selection of and analysis of the administration by our media. THEY decide what we know. THEY decide what details we receive. THEY decide what tone to set. THEY decide OUR moods. But honestly, none of us know how Obama got to the salary freeze decision. Because it was a surprise to us does not mean that it wasn't without a fight.

I understand the frustration people feel but I disagree with the premise that he caves before he tries. We have no clue what or with whom or for how long or how he discusses any issue. Just as he says he needs to get out of the fishbowl that is Washington, we need to realize that we are not looking into a fish bowl and seeing all there is to see. However, we are told to believe he just jumps without thinking or fighting. Why? Why do we continually go where we are led by the very people we criticize repeatedly for being, as Palin correctly states, "lame"? What about Obama in his speeches, in his politicking, suggests that the perception is the reality? Why don't WE do a better job demanding that the two match? Instead we allow the perception to become the accepted stance and then we fight against it. In many ways, we create our own enemies out of thin air. We waste energy and resources punching shadows instead of stopping and thinking and trying to grasp why decisions are made.

We aren't in the room, on the phone or at the other end of the Presidential Blackberry. WE don't know when he goes to the wall or when he realizes that flexibility is key to progress.

Secondly, Obama wasn't really a fighter in the campaign. I don't know how many times Dems would say, "I wish he'd....". We've done it to him since day one. Often I hear "We want the campaigner" back as if that Obama were a different person. He hasn't changed. His job has changed. I've always said that a campaign is a wedding but being President is the marriage. Weddings are about the drama and excitement, the memories and good vibes. But everyone who is married, or in a long-term relationship, hell, even a friendship, knows that the wedding ends when the bride and groom drive off with cans strung to their bumper.

When my husband and I were first married, we fought all the time and the fights may have appeared to be about stupid things but they were always about one thing at the root of it all: communication. And it's with persistence and bending and listening and changing that a marriage progresses into a relationship that makes both people feel involved and active and stable.

The problem is that we can't communicate with Obama in any direct way. A speech is one-sided. A press conference doesn't necessarily address our specific questions. We can't get in deep to understand and share with the very person we want to hold accountable for every decision made. It's truly not fair. We demand so much of a President but have no way of communicating with him. Instead, we rely on the media to do it for us and we get frustrated at him when the messenger tells us to.

Now the Republicans are threatening to block all legislation unless the Democrats add to the deficit by extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. It's hypocrisy in so many damn ways. We all know that. But what is the best way of dealing with them? Is being equally stubborn the answer?

The Democrats didn't care about the deficit much more than being able to call hypocrisy on the Republicans before. We don't care if we add to it if it creates stimulus. But by goddess we won't add to it if it benefits the wealthy!

Well, here's the deal. We need to be grown-ups. Do I want us to add to the deficit? NO. I have been one of the Democrats who wants to pay it down so we can free ourselves from debt to places like, oh, China. But do I think there is no solution other than black and white? No. I am realistic. There are options. We are as bad as the Republicans when we say "we won't compromise". Hell, that's what the Republicans said in their letter. We know that Murkowski said she would vote to repeal DADT because it's the right thing to do. But now she'd block it because she wants to play a game of extortion?

Do I like extortion? No. That's why I also don't like blanket statements like "Tell Obama not to compromise" especially when followed by some vague threat of primarying him with someone "more liberal".

WE MUST COMPROMISE. But compromise is a bad word these days. So from now on I'll just call it what it is: being a grown up. Progress is working toward a goal. It isn't being a stubborn ass (pun intended) refusing to climb a mountain. Progress is being the bigger person and seeing that giving an inch gains a mile. Who gives a fuck about the inch when we have a mile?!

Priorities and perspective. We need them. We also need to step back from our knee-jerk emotional responses and see that big picture our President is always seeing and trying to show us. It's on us to stop demanding specifics and start thinking about what is more important: the result or how we get it. I want results and we are getting them from President Obama. How we get them is water under the bridge.

Back to the initial point about the salary freezes, the best I can articulate it is this: we have been creating private sector jobs. We have been losing public sector jobs. I would rather we freeze salaries than lay people off. And yes, some workers will be frozen at a pay that is too low already. But that is better than being without a job or having to get a similar paying job with zero health benefits.

I am constantly remind myself of four things:

1) Am I being a hypocrite? If so, reconcile it with integrity and honesty.

2) Do I believe the source or the spin? If not, decide what I think.

3) Read, watch or learn two positive things for every negative thing I read.

4) Obama IS the person I voted for. He IS doing the exact job I expected him to do. The frustrations are valid but irrelevant to the bigger picture of a nation consisting of opposing views and opinions and interpretations of fact. Follow Obama's lead on this because he's a grown up and I need to try to act like a grown up myself.

Oh, and I should probably add that we all define "fighting" differently. My idea of the President fighting may not be his idea or your idea or a Republican's idea. People need to stop clinging to semantics on this issue.

Fierce Urgency of Patience

POSTED BY JHW22

Looking back on the Obama campaign, I think there were two major blunders in their messaging that sounded great at the time but have become a problem for the administration.

1) Thinking that the MLK phrase "The fierce urgency of now" wouldn't confuse the instant-gratification-psychosis of Americans. Many either didn't hear or have forgotten when Obama also said "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term." And now the fierce urgency (aka impatience) of America is biting the Obama Administration in the butt.

I have a preschooler who asks to do B so I'll say, "Yes, after we finish A". Emotional chaos ensues because he equates "wait" with "no". That is how America is acting toward Obama. If he hasn't accomplished each American's personal agenda by now, they react as if waiting equals never. Add to that the unwillingness of my son or Americans to listen and process, and we face a lot of unnecessary chaos.

As I tell my son, waiting does not mean no, but tantrums make the wait longer and more unbearable.

2) Saying the campaign wasn't about Obama but about US spoke to the me-me-me psychosis of America . He repeatedly reminded Americans of our role in our government. He was absolutely correct and it was something I appreciated. But now, not so much. Now each American thinks they now control each decision, priority and sentence coming out of the governing process. Should we play a role? Definitely. But the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen" is an understatement when every American thinks that he or she alone can demand and condemn the White House without considering any other American's demands. Three-hundred-million Americans can't all have it their way. Again, it's like my preschooler who wants to play with his friends and his toys until the friends want to play with the same toys.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39772.html

LA Times Accuses Obama of "Small Donor Myth"

Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times thinks he's caught Obama in a red handed lie. I think it's an inane false argument.

Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.

Except, it turns out, that's not really true.

In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the great Republican Satan 25%. Obviously, this is unacceptable to current popular thinking.

The study Malcolm is referring to counts any donation under $200 as a "small donation." And of course, as per federal law you are not allowed to contribute more than $4,600 to any campaign ($2,300 each for the primary and the general elections). They are looking at total donations and not individual donations. Now I consider myself a small donor, there is no doubt about that. I did not and probably won't ever max out at $4,600. Hell, I didn't even break $500 let alone the $1,000 that would have me considered a "large" donor, but I did break the $200 mark which puts me in a second category which Malcolm doesn't characterize in his post.

Now I don't know about you, but I think the whole point of "small" donations and the organization it took the Obama campaign to fine tune the donation process was the fact that small donors can be repeat contributors over the course of the campaign without causing too much of a burden for those who chose to donate again. I was a five time donor but I most likely would have given less if required to make a one-time large payment. It was a slow bleed instead of a major bloodletting, if you will. And that was fine with me - I was in a position to do so.

But in his article, Malcolm (who I am assuming is a Republican judging solely on his sarcastic characterization of Bush as the "great Republican Satan") is mixing percentages and actual donations. That's because the study does the same:

"Obama received about 80% more money from large donors (cumulative contributions of at least $1,000) than from small donors. "

Well... yeah. Fewer large donors are going to generate more money than a larger number of small donors. So now I'm going to play semantics with their numbers and actually come out with a more truthful result.

If you take what the Obama campaign said was the average donation from a small donor (some estimates were anywhere from $92 to $103 off the top of my head) and what the study in question claims the low end of the large donor category is ($1,000) then it's a ratio of about 10 to 1 to equate the monies. Of course large donors will account for more money. But how about the donors stuck in the middle like me who donated anywhere between $200 and $999? They accounted for 27% of donors according to the study.

So 53% of all Obama donors gave $999 or less and 47% gave $1,000 or more. Compare that with McCain's numbers: under $1,000 - 41%, $1,000 or more - 59%. And now let's look at the individual contributions:
Obama: Under $1,000 - 67%. Over $1,000 - 33%
McCain: Under $1,000 - 47%. Over $1,000 - 53%

You can play with these numbers all day, but the fact remains that overall, small donations whether one time or multiple accounted for more of Obama's total campaign finances than did the large donation no matter how studies or conservatives at the LA Times try to skew the numbers in order to cast doubt on the President-elect.

And the Obama campaign agrees:

The Obama team rejects the fundamental hypothesis of the study. If you were a donor who saved up to donate $20 to the campaign every couple months over the course of two years, an aide says, and all of those contributions eventually added up to more than $200, that doesn't mean you’re not a small dollar donor.

It's time that people like Andrew Malcolm and Jake Tapper join in the discourse on how to reverse the craptacular performance of the Bush administration and stop trying to lick the wounds of a huge Republican loss with semantic numbers games. Get used to the phrase "President Obama." He won. Get over it and move on.

And So It Begins

The Face Of Racism

The head of the Hillsborough GOP, David Storck, distributed an email from a Republican Party volunteer saying the voters are a threat.

That's because, as the volunteer says in the email, he sees "car loads of black Obama supporters coming from the inner city to cast their votes for Obama."

It goes on to say, "This is their chance to get a black president and they seem to care little the he is at minimum a socialist and probably Marxist in his core beliefs." The Republican volunteer says that is because, "After all he is black- no experience or accomplishments but he is black."

Look at Storck's lying ass on the video. This is the worst kind of racist because when confronted about it, he tries to weasel his way out of it by saying he didn't mean for it to be construed as racist. I always say I'd rather deal with a neo-nazi or a skinhead than these cowardly motherfuckers, because at least you know what you're dealing with.

John McCain should repudiate these remarks and demand the resignation of Storck as the Republican Chairman at Hillsborough, but you know he won't because he's just as much of a coward and a weasel as Storck.

It's Time For Joe The Plumber To Shut The Fuck Up

Okay, Joe (if that is your real name) I've had it with you. You've far exceeded your 15 minutes.

When you first came on the scene, I thought it was a bit interesting. Here's this everyman that is obviously a Republican who doesn't know any better and votes against his own best interests. That's cool. There are many other people like you who do. You approached Barack Obama while he was walking in your neighborhood, and although you seemed to show a little less respect than I personally would like to have seen shown to a sitting United States Senator, you got your question across and made your point. You thought Obama would raise your taxes if you made over $250,000 a year after you bought your boss' s plumbing business.

But little did you know how your life would change after your hero, John McCain would invoke your name 21 times in the last presidential debate. Throngs of reporters gathered outside your home to get a little Joe the Plumber (if that is your real profession) wisdom. JOE THE PLUMBER! JOE THE PLUMBER! JOE THE PLUMBER! McCain was giddy with Joe the Plumber mania. He finally had a working class guy at his side he could exploit, and exploit you he did.

Did you not expect anyone to check out your background after your name and face became the new McCain campaign slogan? And then we started finding out the truth about Joe the plumber.

Joe "The Plumber" Werzulbacher asked about Obama's tax plan over $250,000 but only makes $40,000.
Joe "The Plumber" Werzulbacher hadn't made a decision on who he was voting for yet, but wasn't even registered to vote and had donated $100 to the McCain campaign.
Joe "The Plumber" Werzulbacher owes $1,100 in back taxes so what difference is Obama's tax plan going to make if he doesn't pay taxes anyway?
Joe "The Plumber" Werzulbacher DOESN'T HAVE A PLUMBER'S LICENSE!
Joe "The Plumber" Werzulbacher's real name is Sam.

After watching the full video of Obama explaining for over five minutes in great detail how you might even pay less taxes than under McCain's plan with your false 'quarter of a million dollars-buying a business' scenario, all you took out of it was the "spread the wealth" comment that was a tack on at the end of the conversation. And that's all the McCain campaign took out of it too, but we expect that from a campaign, not an honest, hard working guy like you, Joe.

So what happens next? All of a sudden Joe the non licensed plumber is an expert and getting called to appear of Fox News... well I suppose he's as good an expert as anyone else at Fox News. He's given major exposure. He starts campaigning for Sarah Palin even though McCain said it was Obama that had put Joe in the spotlight. He's a hot commodity. So what do you do, Joe? Joe the plumber hires Jim the publicist. Joe the plumber wants to make a country album.

But then the tide starts to turn, doesn't it, Joe? All of a sudden you start getting asked important questions. Questions that you don't know the answers to, McCain policy questions that had you actually been interested in knowing and understanding, might have made you look like less of a fool than you look now. Foreign policy questions you have no clue about, and instead of keeping your mouth shut and saying you don't have enough knowledge to answer, after all you're just a plumber, you agree with someone who says that a vote for Obama equals death to Israel. OOPS! And when you're called on it by a Fox news anchor who somehow had the decency to stick to the facts, you took the Sarah Palin approach - the non answer answer.



Joe, it's time for you to shut the fuck up. You have thrust yourself into the national spotlight. You weren't forced. You were asked and accepted without knowing the consequences. And now your putting yourself out there as being knowledgeable on the issues (when dare I say you might know less than George W. Bush) and agreeing with nutjobs that think Israel would be in danger in an Obama presidency.

You don't know the answers to any of these questions and yet you dare to say that people should go and get the information themselves and make their own decision, but you haven't done it yourself! You want them to have their own opinion while spouting your own uninformed one. Thank Jebus that Shepard Smith was honest and decent enough, even though he works at Fox, to straighten you out and make sure that people viewing knew you are full of shit as he stated Obama's stance on Israel.

I'll leave you with Keith Olbermann's take on Sam the non licensed plumber but before I do, I just want to say one more thing to Joe/Sam:

Joe, I don't know what I'd do if I were in your position. The spotlight can be addictive, the attention you are receiving is probably like nothing most of us will ever experience. But I'm asking you for the sake of the country to shut the fuck up. Stop speaking about things you know nothing of.

Take your own advice, Joe, and really research the issues. Try to understand the complicated policies and plans, figure out what best suits your needs and goals. And after all that, if you want to vote for McCain, then vote for him. But make sure that you're voting for McCain because he speaks to your issues and not against Obama because you've heard he's a radical Muslim Socialist Communist because Sarah Palin said so.

After two years of campaigning, don't you think the guy has been vetted to the point that this would have already come up during the primaries? It's been debunked. Let it go. Stop perpetuating the lies and start thinking about the real concerns, the real problems our country faces, and what you can do as an individual to make the world a better place your future generations.

Your fifteen minutes were up twenty minutes ago, Joe. It's been a fun ride but now it's time to get off.

O-BAM!-A

Stupid Is As Stupid Does - Part the Third

Elisabeth Hasselbeck:

"I find it completely then repulsive to then - if we want to look at spending - see how Barack Obama now is going to spend what $3 million on two thirty minute ads that are going to run this week."

So Hasselbeck considers it "repulsive" spending money on ad buys with the economy being what it is. Hmmm... Think about that for a minute. Hasselbeck considers buying ad time repulsive, but she'll defend Sarah Palin and the RNC on the $150,000 spent on her wardrobe in a month. Not to mention the $20,000 spent on a make up artist for Palin in about two weeks. Yet, Obama's 30 minute time block is "repulsive." I wonder if she would find it repulsive had it been McCain and Palin buying that ad time. I'm thinking not.

Hey Elisabeth, do you find the New Mexico GOP's voter intimidation tactics against hispanic voters "repulsive"? How about the fake flier being circulated in Virginia "informing" Democratic voters to cast their vote on November 5th, the day after the election in order to ease the load at the polls? Do you find that "repulsive"? What about attempting to suppress voting and registration for college students? Is that repulsive, Hasselbeck?

The thing I find repulsive is that Elisabeth Hasselbeck continues to open her piehole. Stick to the nipple talk and the virtues of breast pumps, Elisabeth, and leave the serious talk for serious, intelligent people.

What If...

I received this e-mail from a friend and thought I'd submit it here. It's one of those e-mails that gets circulated around so I don't know who the originator was - I apologize in advance - but I am not taking credit for it.

We all know that racism has played a part in this campaign from the very beginning (I'm not about to start naming specific instances... maybe that's for another post) but picturing the campaign scenario had Obama's and McCain's situations been reversed, the outcome would be completely different. I've thought about this in passing on occasion, but having it written out and really thinking about it, even caught me by surprise. I'm sure you'll feel the same way.

Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

What if the presidential candidates exchanged race? Think about it... Would the country's collective point of view be different?

Ponder the following:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was divorced?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after she was severely disfigured in a car accident?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain had graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to displaypublicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are? This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

So let's consider some other stuff like educational backgrounds:

Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University, College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

John McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Education isn't everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world.

See what I mean? At least one of those caught you off guard, admit it. Six days until Election Day. Vote early and vote often.

The Closing Argument

Al-Qaeda Endorses McCain

Fresh off the heels of Colin Powell's ringing endorsement of Barack Obama comes this interesting little tidbit of information:

Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

Now, we really don't care what Al-Qaeda thinks and I'm taking this news with a grain of salt because had it been the other way around, I'd probably feel the same way and I'm really trying to be objective, but isn't it obvious that if we keep depleting our resources (military, treasury, our economy in the tank) that a continuaiton of the war, which is what a McCain presidency would bring us, would have the effect that Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden wanted in the first place? Isn't that why they targeted the WORLD TRADE Center? Hit them in the pocketbook is always a knock out blow.

I'm guessing the McCain campaign will try to spin this as a scare tactic by the "liberal" media who is obviously in the tank for Obama, or just blame the Obama campaign - they blame everything else on them so I'm not expecting anything different - but we'll find out soon enough.

O-BAM!-A

The Audacity of Erraticism

How is it that someone can demand respect for one's opponent and then say they're going to kick their opponent's ass in the same breath? And yet, that is exactly what John McCain did this past Sunday.

"After I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we're going to be going out 24/7... I want to emphasize again, I respect Senator Obama. We will conduct a respectful race, and we will make sure that everybody else does, too."

What the fuck is going on? The post traumatic stress disorder has finally gotten the better of ol' Johnny Maverick. I'm not even going to attempt to call his comment veiled racism because he used the word, "whip." That's neither here nor there because what I found appalling was the response from the McCain campaign regarding the John Lewis "controversy."

After a few days of intense negativity from McCain and Palin to the point of inciting hate-filled ourbursts from audience member in their rallies, Rep. John Lewis of Georgia said the following:

McCain and running mate Sarah Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse." He noted that Wallace also ran for president. "George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights... As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."

Of course the McCain campaign was outraged at such statements, and challenged Barack Obama to repudiate Lewis' statements. as if Obama had anything to do with it.

"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.
I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."

Now, call me cynical, but taking John Lewis' history as a civil rghts leader into account, I'm going to have to side with him on this one over the objections of McErratic.

It was obvious that Lewis was not comparing McCain to Wallace directly, but rather in the way he was raising the hackles of his audience with fear mongering, guilt by association and tone. And although McCain tried to tone down the nasty nature of his followers, the smear ads and surrogates continue to fan the flames, attempting to keep McCain above the fray, but failing.

Lewis later added this statement to avoid any confusion:

"My statement was a reminder to all Americans that toxic language can lead to destructive behavior," he said. "I am glad that Sen. McCain has taken some steps to correct divisive speech at his rallies. I believe we need to return to civil discourse in this election about the pressing economic issues that are affecting our nation."

But McCain wanted a statement from the Obama campaign, and he got one.

"John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States 'pals around with terrorists,"' Burton said in a statement.

And just as a side note, McCain was touting John Lewis during the Saddleback Forum of a few weeks ago as one of three "wise men" that he consults on a regular basis. Another lie.

So on the one hand, McCain considers Lewis a "wise man" he would look to for advice, but when confronted by Lewis with a dangerous situation of his own making, he's another Obama surrogate just slinging mud. Just sayin'.

Palin's Terrorist Ties

Two can play at this game.

In what seems to be a circling-the-drain moment for the McCain campaign, their Alamo if you will, their last "surge" akin to the final scene of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, these last 30 days before Novemeber 4th are going to be chock full of negative ads against Barack Obama. Going negative is one thing, being dishonest about it is another. And that dishonesty has been opened up by Governor Sarah Palin.

As only Palin can do in her perky, little twangy way, she has accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

Well, with that last sentiment, I couldn't agree more. But if Palin had actually read "all" the papers that have been put in front of her over the years, she would know that the Bill Ayers smear to which she is referring, has been around for over a year and has been debunked. She would know that the extent of Obama's "connection" with Bill Ayers was that they both served on a charity board several years ago and has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities. She would know that Barack Obama was eight years old at the time that Ayers was part of Weather Underground and that connecting Obama to Ayers would be like connecting Palin to Joe Biden for speeches he made in the Senate while she "was in like, second grade." She would know that charges against Ayers were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct and that he has been a professor at the University of Illinois since she was parading in swimsuit competitions.

But as I said before, Palin is correct in stating that Obama doesn't see America as she does. You see, Barack Obama pays his taxes, which may be the real reason why Palin said paying taxes was not patriotic during her only VP debate. Barack Obama doesn't have investigators checking on whether or not he fired someone for refusing to partake in a personal vendetta. Barack Obama is not married to someone who belonged to a secessionist party, which is considered treason if I'm not mistaken, nor has he attended secessionist party conventions.

The same cannot be said of Governor Palin. Her wife, Todd was a member of the Alaska Independence Party from 1995-2002 and associated with AIP founder Joe Vogler -the same Joe Vogler who said, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." The same Joe Vogler who said, "there is more Justice in a whorehouse than in the Supreme Court... the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag ...". The same Joe Vogler who was found murdered, his body found a year and a half after his disappearance in 1993, wrapped in a blue tarp and duct tape, in what was described as a plastic explosives sale gone bad.

Perhaps she could clear things up if the McCain campaign made her available for press conferences without the "filter" that she claims made her look like a boob in interviews which were hand picked by her own campaign, instead of sequestering her from the media. But alas, her usefulness is not outlasting her foibles. Soon, McCain will no longer be able to hide behind Palin's skirt as her approval ratings plummet with each passing day the more the public sees of her.

In an anticipatory response to the overt use of negative ads that the McCain campaign admitted it would resort to in order to avoid talking about serious topics like the economy, the Obama campaign is countering with their own ad calling him "erratic in a crisis," and after what we've seen from McCain these last two weeks regarding the financial crisis, it's nice to see some truth in advertising.



So be careful what you say, Governor Palin. You may open up a Pandora's Box and get your face eaten off by a wolf you missed¹ from your airplane².
______________________________________
¹ ² Warning - graphic images.