Bailouts and Taxes

It's been an exciting/terrifying day and a half watching the stock market. Yesterday, the Dow plunged more than 500 points, and it started today down over 100. Much of this loss, and pretty much all of the worries over the next several days, center on AIG, which is the world's largest insurance company and one of the companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Stocks have been staging comebacks today on hopes that the federal government will step in and spend tens of billions (or more) of taxpayer dollars to bail AIG out from losses incurred by bad investments by the company.

(note: In future postings, I will endeavor to summarize the whole sub-prime/Bear Stearns/Lehman/AIG mess, but for now, just know that the government might be justified in preventing AIG's going out of business because it would screw over a lot of banks.)

Given all the money being spent by the federal government to bail out Wall Street investors, isn't it reasonable to ask investors to pay more in capital gains taxes, as Obama has proposed for people making more than $250,000 a year? Wall Street wants to share the risks of their investments with taxpayers, so shouldn't they also share more of the rewards?

Speaking of lies...

Here's a doozy from McCain's appearance today on The View. He claims that Alaska didn't take any federal earmarks as governor of Alaska. Which is just colossal BS. Alaska, even under Palin, takes more earmarks per capita than any other state.

Also on The View today, he personally backed up the ads regarding sex ed and kindergarteners previously discussed here. It's so disheartening to see him personally vouch for such a misleading, sleazy ad. On the topic of the sex ed ad, Planned Parenthood came out with a response ad today that is very good and worth watching.

It really is sad that McCain is destroying his "Straight Talk" image so completely. I voted for the man in the 2000 primary season, but he's really blowing it. As the Obama campaign so wonderfully put it today, "John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election."

Way to go, MSNBC!

Congressman and former Republican VP short-lister Eric Cantor (R-VA) is on MSNBC right now. He said something very similar to (I don't have the transcript, as it's a random Friday afternoon interview on MSNBC) "Sarah Palin told the federal government "no, thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere and sent the money back to Washington." This statement, of course, is patently false. Alaska kept the money and spent it on other things. MSNBC's anchor (apologies to her for not knowing her name) just called him on it. She asked him to clarify, "Are you saying she sent the money back to the federal government?", and then when he hemmed and hawed, stated clearly that they kept it.

Media correcting lies. Amazing

Palin-Gibson Interview #1

Here's a transcript of the first part of ABC anchor Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. Rather than copy-paste the whole thing here, I'll make references to it and let y'all read it over there, or just trust me to not take the comments I'm responding to out of context. As I expect this to be a fairly lengthy, I'll bold the key points to facilitate skimming.

1. She engaged in a circular argument about whether she feels she's qualified to be VP

PALIN: [O]n January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

The definition of a circular argument. In effect, she said "I didn't blink when asked to be VP because a VP can't blink when faced with tough decisions." Oh, good. I'm glad that was cleared up.

2. She's been outside of North America exactly once. Luckily, it was a life-changing trip.

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

I'm not saying that a potential VP must have been all over the world or anything, but can't we all agree that it would be way better if they have? Part of engaging in international diplomacy is having a sense of foreign culture and peoples, and one would have a much better sense of places one's visited. And it doesn't seem she did much more than visit US troops on this trip. Did she even meet any Kuwaitis or Germans on this trip?

3. She's never met a foreign leader.

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state.

See what I mean about her nomination destroying McCain's biggest advantage over Obama?

4. She would add Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, even though Putin has said he would not tolerate such expansion, and even though including these nations would commit us to go to war to defend them.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

As has been endlessly discussed over the past few years, the US military is being stretched thin by our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Palin wants to commit us to defending former Soviet republics against Russia, which, last I checked, has a substantially more advanced army than either enemy we've fought during the Bush Administration. This statement is another example of the blustering, belligerent foreign policy of McCain and the Republicans.

5. Israel would have a complete carte blanche to attack whomever they pleased during a McCain/Palin administration

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

Isn't that shocking? "We cannot..." Israel can do whatever they want to defend itself, even if that means attacking Iran, Syria or anyone else they perceive as a threat, and McCain/Palin won't second guess them. At his recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), John McCain reiterated a long-standing tenet of American foreign policy that we will defend Israel, through at least military aid and likely through direct intervention, if necessary. And Palin doesn't think that promise gives us the right to ask them to not to anything stupid, that might commit us to war.

6. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

It's the most significant new American foreign policy in decades, and she doesn't know what it is. Actually, that's not surprising for someone whose running mate says her most prominent foreign policy credentials are commanding the Alaska National Guard and being geographically close to Alaska. Oh yeah, that reminds me...

7. She felt it necessary to point out that one can see Russia while standing on an Alaskan island.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

So she thinks she has a unique perspective of how important it is to not piss of Russia, yet as previously discussed, she wants to extend our umbrella of protection right up to their border with Georgia, despite Russia's contention that they won't let that happen. What does she think is going to happen? We're going to say "We'll defend Georgia!", and Putin will respond "Oh yeah? You and what army?"

Republicans, Palin and Service

Today, as part of their efforts to be nice to each other for at least one freakin' day (after promising early on to be nice to each other for the whole campaign, but whatever...), Obama and McCain are both appearing at a forum on service. While the event will no doubt be a civil affair, Obama should be able to draw clear distinctions between himself and Republican thoughts on the topic.

Two of the three most prominently featured speeches at the Republican convention pissed on the concept of serving one's community. As the keynote speaker, Rudy Giuliani mocked Obama's work as a community organizer. During Palin's speech (I hesitate to call it her speech, because she didn't write it, but whatever), one of the more memorable lines compared her time as the mayor of Wasilla to Obama's years as a community organizer. "I guess a small-town mayor," Palin said, "is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

What an arrogant statement! Obama the community organizer worked for, among other groups and causes, factory workers who had lost their jobs and with it their income, healthcare and self-sufficiency. Saying that Obama, meeting with these men and women in church basements and working to help them find opportunities to be retrained and find new jobs, had no responsibilities while a community organizer completely blows any genuine concept of service. He had the same responisibility to help the less fortunate among us that all Christians have. It's just that he did something about it during his early career, instead of entering beauty pageants. Apparently, it's Palin's (and, presumably, McCain's, since he no doubt approved Palin's speech) opinion that only people in the government have any responsibilities.

While obviously Obama can't use this forum to campaign for votes, he can most definitely talk about the responsibility he felt as a community organizer. In fact, he should use the word "responsibility" tonight as often as possible when discussing service. As the whole "lipstick on a pig" controversy demonstrates, using specific words from Palin's convention speech gets people's attention.

So Angry at CNN

(note: this post is being originally written at about 9am today, but thanks to the SurfControl on WVU computers, even computers in the resident break room, I can't access my blog.)

CNN is covering the various 9/11 memorials happening today in NY, Washington and elsewhere. As always, CNN has a crawl at the bottom of the screen, where they usually go through whatever news stories can be summed up in one sentence. Right now, during the reading of names of those who died at the WTC, they are summarizing the total number of American and coalition deaths in Afghanistan, which is legitimate as that war was/is directly tied to 9/11. But they are also summarizing death totals for Iraq. Why are they bringing that up today? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? They're implicitly acknowledging the often- and widely-discredited Republican position that 9/11 and Iraq should be linked.

Way to be independent, CNN.

While we're on the subject of 9/11 and Iraq, within hours of the attack, according to The New York Times, McCain did a series TV and radio interviews in which he advocated spreading our response beyond Afghanistan, including to Iran, Iraq and Syria. In early October 2001, he stated on CNN "Very obviously Iraq is the first country." And very early in 2002, he stood on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and told the sailors "Next up, Baghdad."

I only recently became aware of these statements, so (not to be immodest), I'd imagine some of y'all hadn't heard them either. And I'm sure most voters don't know that McCain was one of the earliest and most vocal advocates of the Iraq war. I wonder what it would do to his poll numbers if they were to find out.

Why Palin's a Terrible Choice for McCain

Sarah Palin's nomination for VP, while temporarily energizing McCain's campaign, will ultimately destroy any chance he might have had to win this election. The damage to his chances has nothing to do with Trooper-gate, her pregnant daughter, her views on abortion/creationism/etc., her questionable record on the Bridge to Nowhere, or harbor seal DNA (my first self-link. Big moment!). It has to do with Barack Obama.

What was the one real argument the Republicans had against Barack Obama? It wasn't Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers. In the current anti-Republican environment, it wasn't the issues. The "He's a Muslim" angle doesn't work outside of whack-jobs. It was experience. I'm as big an Obama supporter as you're likely to find anywhere, but he is, compared to your typical Presidential candidate, rather short on experience. We can argue all day about whether that deficit matters, but it's undoubtedly there.

Sarah Palin's nomination takes this line of attack and turns it into so much moose stew. A candidate's VP choice is the Presidential equivalent of choosing a godfather for one's children. "If something happens to me, here's the one person I think is best to take care of my country/child." And McCain chose Palin, who at best has as much experience as Obama. So the next time any Republican attacks Obama's resume, he only has to point to the woman Republicans seem to think is the 2nd most qualified person in the nation to lead it.

DNA, Tax Dollars and You

During John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, the nominee stated the following:

"I’ve fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names."

If you've heard McCain's stump speech during the campaign, you've probably heard him mention bear DNA. The federal government, McCain points out, spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. He also had an ad up in November '07 centered on this example, and mentioned it during the forum with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.

Turns out, in a summary of earmarks requested by Alaska earlier this year, Sarah Palin's government asked for, among other things, $3.2 million in "funds [for] monitoring of ice seal populations in Native villages, research on the species delineation and genetics of harbor seals" (found on the bottom of page 2 of the summary). More succinctly, $3.2 million to study, you guessed it, harbor seal DNA! When will McCain make her name famous as a pork-barreler?

Palin requested an earmark which is practically identical to McCain's prime example of government waste (after, of course, the Bridge to Nowhere, about which Palin's involvement has been discussed enough in the media recently that I'll just let y'all read about it elsewhere). Since the clear plan for the McCain/Palin campaign was the whole "real maverick", anti-earmark thing, isn't it obvious that Palin wasn't at all vetted? Frankly, I'm excited. God knows what could come out about her next.

Lipstick on a Pig

Here it comes, my first possibly anti-Obama post:

Tuesday, Barack Obama, in comments in Virginia, compared McCain-Palin's attempts to label themselves as change-agents to putting lipstick on a pig. "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," Obama said. While it's true that Obama has used this particular phrase, and McCain used it in reference to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan, I think it fairly likely that Obama did mean it as an underhanded jab at Palin. I'm not in the man's head, but it does seem odd to use lipstick imagery in such a way after Palin so prominently used it.

Rather prominent political bloggers, who claim that Obama was not referring to Palin, have missed this important distinction. The one most memorable line from Palin's convention speech (which sucked, by the way, but I suppose I wasn't exactly the target audience) involved her beauty-queen lips. This makes any subsequent mention of lipstick far more loaded than in the past. Of course, Obama says thousands of words a day in public, and maybe he just slipped. I don't know. It certainly seemed like a bad time to draw attention away from all the other potentially damaging issues swirling around Palin, whether it was intentional or a slip.

While we're on the subject, what's the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney? Lipstick.

OK, I'm back, and pissed

It's been a busy couple months, as my wife and I have been setting up our new home in Pittsburgh (to quote Indiana Jones' father, we are pilgrims in an unholy land) and I've begun my pediatric training at WVU in Morgantown, West Virginia. I haven't found much time for posting. But, we're down to 8 weeks before the election, and I'm going to make the time, dammit!

Today, the McCain campaign released an ad attacking Senator Obama on education. It's main line of attack is based on Obama's support for a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have required "comprehensive sex education" for all students K-12. Take a moment and watch the ad, asking yourself what Obama was advocating, according to the ad.

No seriously, go watch it; it's only 30 seconds.

Welcome back. The indisputable (go ahead, dispute it, I dare you) implication of the ad is that Obama, ya know, wants to force your 5 year old to put a condom on a banana. In fact, the bill explicitly stated that education in early grades would focus on good and bad touching. Put another way, it would teach kids that your uncle shouldn't touch your pee-pee. And McCain is attacking Obama for it.

Both Obama and McCain have promised to run a clean campaign, and both have failed to varying degrees. This ad represents a new low in this campaign, where Obama is being attacked for trying to teach kids how to watch out for sexual molestation. It's a despicable attack, one that was personally approved by Senator McCain.