Guilt by ASSociation

A lot of us are tired of hearing the smears... especially when they are so incredibly outdated and irrelevant. However, if we were to believe the "Guilt by Association" tactics being used by the McCain campaign maybe we should first start with some actual relevant facts. 

McCain, the guy that would have you believe he's against lobbyists and earmarks has surrounded himself in his campaign with lobbyists and ex-lobbyists. Seven top McCain officials were lobbyists, though the campaign stresses that none is currently registered to lobby Congress. Campaign manager Rick Davis is a major telecommunications lobbyist (CNN). The Obama Campaign even started a website just to present these facts, if you'd like to read them: McLobbyist.com

Of course, it's important to note that ANY politician in Washington is going to have some ties to Lobbyists... including Obama. However, Obama's campaign team isn't the NFL Football Team of Lobbyists as is McCains. I think it's certainly easier to claim you plan to fight the corruption of D.C., and actually have it be believable, when your quarterback isn't identified as a major telecommunications lobbyist.

Let's also talk about the Keating 5. Yes, it was a long time ago, during a period in history eerily similar to what is happening now. It was the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989 when banks were collapsing. Guess who got his hands dirty during this moment in History? That would be your friend and mine, John McCain. 

Irrelevant you say? Too long ago? I'll give it to you that it was almost 20 years ago. However, the difference between this and the William Ayers story is this: McCain was a U.S. Senator at the time, and though he was cleared of criminal charges, the Senate slapped him on the wrist and found his judgement to be poor. Should he deny today that it bares little relevance during a political campaign of 2008, during a time when banks are collapsing and corruption issues are being raised, or should he minimize his participation by calling it a democratic smear job, then he also readily admits he's learned nothing of his own errors at the time. When you ignore the mistakes of the past you are bound to repeat them in the future. Want more info? Visit KeatingEconomics.com

Obama was eight years old when Ayers was out practicing his radical protesting of the 60s (and pardon me, but weren't many protests of the 60s quite radical?)... and since then has become a distinguished college professor, a man who has worked to legitimately reform education, and an anti-poverty philanthropist.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't condone his violent actions of the 60s when he was out protesting the Vietnam War. Nor does Obama. However, Obama was an young child during that time, and has only crossed paths with him many year later at events that could only be called good causes for the local community. To paraphrase something recently said by Whoopi Goldberg: To believe this man is a terrorist is to believe that every student who has learned from him, every college administrator who decides to let him continue to teach and every parent that pays for their very child to attend his classes are all a part of the axis of evil. I simply say, this is ridiculous thinking.

Plus, while McCain today is saying he doesn't want to talk about Ayers anymore out of one side of his mouth, while going on a TV interview and talking out the other side repeating more Ayers distortions, the Wallstreet Journal,  Keith Olberman, and other media sources have their own interesting stories about McCain's ties to Radical Protestors -- including tidbits of interest including links to organizations with their own shady past -- though this probably serves as only more fodder for the right-wing fanatics since they seem to be anti-semite, anti-gay and anti-abortion connections (including violence and bombing).

Ultimately though, if we really want to get into the "Guilt by Association" argument, there is only one that truly matters in this election cycle, best illustrated through pictures...

Palin's Smiles and Smirks - Well Gosh, Ain't it Great???

Not exactly.

Let me tell you, I was all for seeing her fall flat on her face tonight. I do not like this woman in any way what-so-ever. I'm so left-leaning that I realize no matter what had happened tonight I would still vote for Obama on November 4th... however, that doesn't prohibit my ability to recognize inappropriate behavior when I see it.

No matter what the topic Palin smiles her way through the answer. Ya know, if this was a beauty pageant, a high school drama club audition or a political debate in a state where the population is low and 12-1 in favor of men, well then maybe it would fly.

However, this is a national Vice Presidential debate during some VERY SERIOUS times. We have troops at war. We have lost respect and standing around the world. 40 million Americans have no health insurance. Thousands of houses PER DAY are being foreclosed on, unemployment is up and we're on the verge of complete economic collapse. She wants to smile while she answers questions about her kids or her favorite movie, well fine, but when she's addressing questions about war and genocide, Wall Street bailouts and nuclear annihilation I'd prefer she do it without grinning from ear-to-ear.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm disgusted at petty one-liners and insulting jokes when the theme of the day is American families suffering. Call me callous but I'd like to know I'm voting for a "team" that not only says they take the global and American problems seriously, but actually looks like she means it.

Biden was smart, articulate and emotionally appropriate. To me, the clear winner. Palin... well she gets a big old F on my debate scorecard. She could have memorized and recited War and Peace, but if she keeps speaking at me with that grin and reminding me how, well gosh, she just doesn't take these most important topics seriously, then there's no other conclusion to draw than that she believes she's going to be the next American Idol, not the next American Vice President.

All Them Bitches is Just Sexist!!

Wow. Seems like no one can open their mouths about Sarah Palin, unless it's a glowing review, without being called sexist.

McCain's camp is now claiming the Saturday Night Live skit in which Tina Fey played Sarah Palin, was sexist. Mind you, Palin herself has already publicly said she thought it was funny. Did anyone remind John McCain that SNL isn't news or political punditry? Was he crying sexism over Baba Wawa way back when, or was he laughing along with the rest of us? My guess is he was laughing.

What happens the first time a world leader from a less-than-friendly country starts attacking or criticizing Palin? Is the secret service going to rush to her side and call them sexist? Ya know, McCain's camp needs to let her grow a pair if they expect her to stand up there with the big boys. Hmmm, sound familiar? That's because it's essentially what the republicans said, in response to accusations of sexism towards Hillary during the primaries. How soon they forget.

Did you hear the one today about Biden? Out on the stump he recently said, "I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that George Bush and John McCain think," Biden added. "And that's obviously a backward step for women." The women on The View today were discussing it and agreeing it may have had a sexist tone.

What is WRONG with people? If I disagree with Palin's policies, policies that I truly believe are a step backwards for women, it isn't sexist for me to say so just because she's a woman! If she weren't on the ticket, if it were just McCain's policies I were criticizing I would say the same thing... and I HAVE, before she even entered the picture. Overturning Roe vs. Wade and subsequently invading the privacy of women, by scouring through their medical records to enforce a pro-life law that takes away their choice, is SURELY a step backwards for women... at least for those of us that are pro-choice. It doesn't make me a sexist for thinking or saying it, it just makes me disagreeable to the platform in which republicans stand.

What's ironic about the republicans cry of sexism at every turn (whether true or not) is that most of us realize how politically calculated the choice of Palin as VP was, and that in-and-of-itself contained at least a little bit of sexism. How's that you ask? Imagine a bunch of old white guys sitting around a table deciding who McCain's running mate should be. Names fly around, mostly ultra-conservatives to pander to the extreme right, "the base". Sarah Palin's name comes up and there's all kinds of discussion about how they can tap into some of the Hillary vote, for the sole reason that she is a woman. Assuming it's even just a tiny bit true, it's an insult to women everywhere, an underestimating of our intelligence, and certainly a bit sexist to think we'll go right down to the voting booth and pull the lever for Palin solely because she shares our anatomy.

And another thing to consider... all these cries of sexism by McCain's camp to the media and critics, isn't the mere defense of her, the assumption she can't stick up for herself, sexist itself?

The closest thing  I've heard to what some considered truly sexist criticism may have been in response to her kids -- her troubled teen and special-needs infant -- and I honestly believe that to be more a criticism of her parenting. At least for me and probably several hundred family therapists, it equally applies to a male counterpart in the identical situation. Ask yourself what the republicans would be saying if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter and a five-month old with downs syndrome. Lets not even get into the fact that she stands for abstinence-only education while her pregnant 17-year-old stood on stage with her as an example of how that may not be the best policy for the rest of us.

Let me spell it out... If I say she can't do the job because she's a woman, that's sexist. If I make statements that she slept her way to the top or that she'll get votes because she's hot (even though I've heard republicans say it), that's sexist. If I say she belongs at home pushing out more babies and ironing her husband's shirts, not in the whitehouse, that's sexist. I've yet to hear any political criticism in the main-stream media that includes ANY of these statements, or anything even in the same league.

If I say she's a religious fanatic, NOT SEXIST.

If I criticize her policies, NOT SEXIST.

If I share my belief that her policies have a negative impact on women, NOT SEXIST.

If I believe she lacks experience, NOT SEXIST.

If I question her intelligence on what comes out of her mouth, NOT SEXIST.

If I criticize her inability to tell the truth, NOT SEXIST.

I can even call her a bitch and it's NOT SEXIST. Why? Because if she had a penis I'd likely call her a dick, prick or bastard.

And, I'm entitled to just not like her without you calling me sexist! My dislike of her can (and does) come from a lot more places than what's hidden under her bra and panties.

With comedians, all bets are off. Just like David Letterman makes Bush look like the king of the idiots quite often, he's going to do it with Sarah Palin too. Get used to it.

By the way, should republicans choose to continue to believe that every bit of criticism about Palin is sexist they ought be careful. By their rules, every bit of criticism about Obama must, in fact, be racist.

When Talking Heads Stop Talking Smart

How often do you find yourself ready to throw something at the television when you're watching all the political pundits argue after a given stump speech or the latest in revelations about a candidate? I find these days, for me, it's quite often. It's not because they lack an opinion, or even that their opinion doesn't support my own, it's from sheer anger over watching these "experts" argue without citing actual facts to support their claims. How can I know more than them when it's not even my job to know?

A few mind-boggling examples:

"Even Obama now says the surge was a success" -- sometimes expanded to include that he said it was "more successful than we ever imagined".

Ya know, I was screaming at my T.V. this morning over this one. Not ONE of the political opinionators could complete the quote. They either deny Obama said it (and in fact, he did say it in his interview with Bill O'Reilly), or they try to not-so-cleverly change the focus of the conversation.

Here's the RIGHT response you dip-shits... yes, Obama DID say that, but that isn't the complete quote. He said it was a success at reducing the violence in Iraq, but that the Iraqi government has still failed to take responsibility for it's own country while we continue to spend $12 billion  per month there. His overall point for disapproving of the surge to begin with was that it failed to address this exact issue... that it's time for the U.S. to start asking the Iraqis to be responsible for their own progress, and to set up a system of accountability so as to see they actually do it. Has the surge been a success? Yes, in reducing violence only, but not in all the other ways needed so that U.S. troops don't remain their indefinitely.

Another glaring example is the quote from Sarah Palin, "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere." Now sure, the news has reported that she was actually for the Bridge before she was against it, but the Democratic pundits seems to stop there... they don't connect the dots like they should.

Hey, idiots, how about she was FOR IT when she was running for office -- ie., telling the local people what they wanted to hear so she would get elected -- and then she was against it ONLY after she got into office and when Congress had already pulled the plug. Mind you, she kept the money, earmarks, for other infrastructure projects anyway, including the Road to Nowhere to support the non-existent Bridge.

Did you know that she dropped the line when giving speeches in recent days in Alaska? Apparently the Alaskans don't like her lying too much about her record when she's back on home soil, and with the recent Charlie Gibson interview, I guess she was pretty sure she couldn't get away with it... however, her good 'ole shtick has now returned that she's back out on the stump, this time in Nevada.

How do I know all this? Because I pay attention and look stuff up between my two jobs and family life. Why is it the experts that get paid to be on television, the ones that are supposed to question this stuff, can't seem to spend a little more time getting their shit straight?

I'm particularly angry over the fact that very few talking heads seem to be questioning our ability to criticize Sarah Palin without being considered sexist, while also failing to comment on the "vote Sarah hottest VP" on RNC buttons. I didn't hear any outcry tonight while listening to XM-Radio either, when one guy said "middle-class white men like her, in part, because she's hot." I think republicans need a lesson on what is sexist and what isn't, and SOMEONE needs to take them to task on it.

But lets forget Sarah Palin for now.

How about the whole fact that John McCain is the "candidate of change". Where are all the democrats on television screaming how ironic it is that McCain didn't start running his campaign on "change" until he realized that his own message wasn't working. Where are all the factual statements from liberal pundits being offered up as proof of how Bush-Like McCain is? Need an example?

I think we need to start paying John Cusack to be a pundit!

You Don't Have to Be a Pitbull to Sway People

In the last week I have had two conversations about politics will women I knew. I started off by asking them if they've been following it, and if they don't mind sharing who they think they'll vote for.

In both cases, the answer was "McCain."

Without freaking out (though my inner, flaming-liberal was screaming), I asked "why"...

Both answers were different, but both contained information that was just flat-out inaccurate or incomplete.

So nicely, I went on to say I'm 100% for Obama and here's why... on the ISSUES... I started with statements like "did you know..." and cited my sources (independent sources, major news outlets, things they'd recognize) and how McCain/Palin frightens me, especially as a woman, and specifics on why... again ISSUES (not how I think she's satan)... keeping it all as low-key as possible.

And in both cases I walked away from the conversation knowing I had impacted them. Each woman told me "you've got me thinking about Obama now".

I planted a seed in their minds... I informed them on the actual ISSUES - not on personality or who I like better. This is what really matters. People out there are hearing only the sound-bites and ads. They are living their lives, not paying attention the way you and I do, and if some of then, if some of them at least knew what McCain and Palin actually stood for, they'd run for the Obama-Ballot Box... but they have to know first.

Some cannot be converted. Some are as far right as I am far left.... and I'm bent so far left I can press my ear to the floor with my feet still planted on the ground (okay, not really). Don't waste your time on those. However, there are a lot of folks out there who can be convinced, who you can reach if you're not afraid to talk about it.

and when the conversation is over...
if it goes well you can go home and celebrate and believe maybe, just maybe, you got another Obama vote.

If it goes badly, go home and take your blood pressure meds.