Santa Endorses Obama!

So yeah, it's a goofy "tradition" in our family that whenever we see Santa around town or on road trips we try to take a picture to recall our Santa Sighting. Someday I have to start a website for that. LOL.

Saw this one tonight on TV, and was pleased to know that in his downtime he's campaigning for Obama!

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.

More Money in Your Pocket Under Obama

The Tax Policy Center is the place that did the analysis...

Abstract

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

Link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411750

Summary:

-Under Obama's Plan- By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase -- a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

McCain would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012. But, in sharp contrast to Obama, he would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by more than $125,000, raising their after-tax income an average 9.5 percent. 

Questions for the Anti-Choice Crowd

So you want to outlaw abortion?

What happens to the poor, lower class or lower-middle class young woman who ends up pregnant with no money, no insurance and no resources? Do you know how many more of those there will be if you outlaw abortion?

Who is going to take care of all these new babys? How will you deal with the increase in child neglect and abuse (women can be more likely to neglect and abuse their children in unplanned pregnancies). 

Who is going to PAY for all these births (an abortion costs about $300, a birth, without complications, costs about $8000). Who will pay for prenatal care for the woman? 

Who will pay for the orphanages we'll now need; not everyone can afford private adoption, not does everyone have access to adoption agencies and organizations. Who will pay for and manage all the new adoption centers that we will need to open?

Who will house these young women when they are kicked out of their homes? What will happen to all the young women who can't finish college? What about all the women who won't be able to afford daycare? Who will pay for free or affordable daycare?

Who will pay for the medical care of botched illegal abortions? How many young women will die because they feel they have no other choice - because they can't afford to care for a baby or the birth of the baby, or who don't have enough support around them to care for it?

What do you propose to women who aren't prepared to take care of a seriously disabled child? What do you propose to the women who find themselves pregnant with a fetus which has fatal abnormalities? What do you suggest to women with health issues -- not only the ones where pregnancy or birth could cause death, but could cause other medical issues? What do you propose to the woman who was raped or suffered through incest, and what type of home will the baby be born into in the latter (incest victim RARELY tell while being victimized... they offer suffer in silence until much later in life, if ever).

How will you prevent doctors from providing the service secretly, but in less safe environments because there are no policies governing safety? How will you police it? Who will pay for that policing? How much personal privacy will you have to violate to enforce it? This gets right down to the issue of Roe vs. Wade:

"According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings."

This is NOT a cut and dry issue, and we ALL want to reduce the number of abortions... but we don't need to create a society with unsafe, illegal abortions, more and more children that can't be adequately cared for, with more mothers who need to rely on "the system", with increased substandard prenatal care and with the government invading our medical privacy to enforce such a law. We CAN reduce the number of abortions through better education and health insurance FOR ALL... not through outlawing abortions all together.

John McCain is Change? Oh Reallllly....

On Taxes:

McCain: "There are significant differences between the two candidaes on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own."
... what would George do? They are called The Bush Tax cuts aren't they?

Obama: "Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. He would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, but has also promised tax breaks for low and middle-income Americans."

Source: Washington Post.

On Social Security:

McCain: "McCain has expressed support for individual investment accounts as a way to augment Social Security benefits."
... what would George do? He often talks about private retirement accounts.

Obama: "Obama has said he opposes individual accounts and doesn't favor increasing the retirement age or cutting benefits. But he has called for increasing the amount of payroll tax that very high-income workers pay by subjecting more of their income to the payroll tax."

Source: CNN

On Healthcare:

McCain's plan would not require anyone to have insurance, but he would change the tax incentives for getting it. No insurance will be required, but individuals would be able to get a tax credit. But here's the catch, now, individuals would be taxed on the subsidy they receive from their employers' plans (they aren't taxed on it now). SO, individual income tax is increased, and then offset by a credit.
... what would George do? QUOTE: "...put more power in the hands of individuals, by making private health insurance more affordable and accessible... The best way to make private insurance more affordable, however, is to reform the tax code."

Obama would make coverage mandatory for children, and he would create a National Health Insurance Exchange of public and private plans for the uninsured, for those who aren't eligible for other public programs and for small businesses. Obama would keep the tax-free subsidy for those covered at work. But he would also create a federal subsidy - based on income - for people who don't qualify for government plans such as Medicaid.

Sources: CNN, Whitehouse.gov, AllBusiness.com

On Global Leadership:

McCain: "With his selection of Sarah Palin has his running mate, McCain cancels out much of the good he has said and done vis a vis global leadership. In Palin, here's a person who is focused narrowly on the provincial interests of conservative, right-wing Americans (or maybe just Alaskans), who advocates exploiting natural resources and burning fuel rather than conserving and coming up with energy alternatives, and who considers the defense of human rights to be unpatriotic. Imagine how the leaders of the rest of the world would deal with her as president. The United States would be a laughingstock among nations."
...sadly, we know what George has done to our position in the World.

Obama: "It's clear from Obama's reception in Europe and the Middle East earlier this year that world leaders would embrace him as a colleague." "Obama was the first major candidate to call for a swift diversion of U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and now both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have echoed those views... on Pakistan, Obama has long called for greater humanitarian aid to help that country wean itself from extremism. Now, in a bipartisan effort, Sens. Richard Lugar and Joseph Biden have sponsored a bill that would authorize $7.5 billion over five years in aid for building schools, roads, clinics and other development projects."

Sources: Business Week, Newsweek

On Energy:

McCain: Taking action now to break our dependency on foreign oil by reforming our transportation sector, Expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration and production, Addressing speculative pricing of oil, and Drill Baby Drill.
...what George is doing: Drilling Baby Drilling.

Obama: Reduce carbon emissions 80-percent by 2050, Reduce carbon emissions 80-percent by 2050, Restore U.S. leadership on climate change, Set America on path to oil independence, Invest in a clean energy future, Support next generation Bio-fuels

Source: Fox Detroit, RNC Speech

On Education:

McCain: Make it easier for private companies and agencies to open charter schools that increase competition for district schools. Find a way around union contracts that stand in the way of making teaching more competitive. Keep existing federal education budget, but redistribute the money to more effective teachers, schools and programs.
...what would George do? Set the Budget McCain will keep, oh, and No child left behind (except you, and you and oh, that little one in the back)

Obama: Add $18 billion a year to education, to come from what is now being spent on the Iraq war, delaying some NASA programs and other inefficiencies in government spending. Lengthen the school day, expand aid to early childhood learning and intervene early to provide struggling students with special course work and counseling. Work with teachers' unions to make teaching a more competitive.

Source: Arizona Central


Remember, McCain has voted with Bush more than 90% of the time and has been in Washington a LONG time. 

How does he represent change???