If John McCain lives through the first 4 years of office, he will not seek a second term.  His advanced age will become even more of an issue in 2012 than it is currently.  Imagine Sarah Palin running for office, with more unified Republican support, and 4 years of experience in the White House.  Part of the VP’s job is to meet with foreign leaders.  This would decimate the experience issue, which has been chief among the complaints of the more conservative Republicans who have reluctantly embraced Obama’s candidacy.

There are many reasons to vote:

And I’m not saying there’s a possibility we might not end up regretting Obama. But that’s a lot better than the 100% certainty I think we’d have of regretting Vice President Palin.

Palin shouldn’t be in office.  No matter who was running, I’d vote to keep her further than a heartbeat from the highest office in the country.

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Posted under Politics

One of the most appealing qualities of being American is the role of the individual. Our culture glorifies liberty and with great reason. Coming from the state that hosts Walden Pond, I’ve always felt a strong connection to the tradition of writers and activists that continues to pour out of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is also a state where Gay Marriage has been legal for quite some time. Looking over at the fight brewing in California makes me a little nostalgic. MA has its fair share of theocrats too.

This is something we need to be clear about. Anyone opposing the freedom of consenting adults to enter into the bonds of marriage with each other is doing so to impose their religious views on the entire country.  This line from the Wall Street Journal caught my eye:

Mormon leaders, on the church’s official Web site, ask their followers to support the California ballot measure to reinforce church teachings that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.”

There is just no justification on this green Earth for using a ballot measure – an instrument of state – to enforce church teachings.  None.  This shit burns me up.  Sarah Palin, the Republican VP candidate is eating it up:

The issue has come up in the presidential campaign, with Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, suggesting this week that she would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide.

She’s signaling just as clearly as she can that if elected, she’ll use her power as Queen of the U.S. Senate to begin pushing her Bible on our laws.

Its getting to a point where its just too much to take.  Check out this video of a McCain/Palin supporter (via an especially pertinent and brilliant post at Pandagon):

Its marked the first time I’ve felt strongly “This person shouldn’t have the right to vote”.  This thought startled and upset me as soon as I had it, since I strongly believe everyone has the right to vote (and ought to be encourage to).  Faith in this sense is not a virtue.  It is a liability.  It is a knife through the heart of reasoned discourse.  Watching that video, do you think it remotely possible to discuss positions and substance with that woman and get anywhere at all?  Everything comes down to this black and white binary of whether it fits into her personal religious view, and there is no room for anything other than the comfortable dogma she knows by rote.

What it comes down to is this rage and this conviction I have.  That however I feel about the election, I want with every ounce of me to resist a small but vocal segment of this country dragging us all deeper into their theocratic pit.

to the theocrat:

this is the land of the free

you won’t tread on me

Posted under Politics, Religion, Sexuality

The Weekly Standard is claiming no one ever said “Kill Him” in reference to Barack Obama.

If in point of fact that comment was directed at Ayers (tell me again whether McCain and Palin’s more ignorant supporters hold any difference between Ayers, Obama, liberals in general, or Democrats), it doesn’t explain this second remark (Times Tribune via Justice League):

There were no incendiary outbursts from the crowd about Mr. Obama during Mrs. Palin’s speech, as there have been during other recent McCain-Palin rallies.

However, someone did shout out, “Kill him!” during Republican congressional candidate Chris Hackett’s remarks before Mrs. Palin took the stage.

The outburst came during a round of booing from the crowd after Mr. Hackett said Mr. Obama should come to Pennsylvania and learn what the state’s values are.

The right is in full spin control mode on this.  Nothing upsets the right wing like being justifiably accused of terrorism (Orcinus).  John Leo writes:

A Huffington Post piece by one Jeffrey Feldman asked, “Is Palin Trying to Incite Violence against Obama?” ‘Two subheads in this piece were worse: “McCain Camps Talk ‘Character Assassination,’Supporters shout for real assassination” and “McCain Campaign Amplifies Violent Rhetoric. GOP Crowd Threaten Obama’s life.” Nothing like this happened. No crowd threatened Obama, or called for his assassination. Millbank’s article, the only primary source for “ugliness” at Palin’s speech did not report this, probably because these incendiary events occurred only in the minds of some liberal writers, not in the real world.

He uses the tried and true right wing method of tactical right wing bullshit: projection.  Thus far we have the Scranton threat, the Ayers-aimed threat, and the plot to assasinate Obama.  In the right wing world “Documented by the press” constitutes the imaginary.  Facts and Rationality fly out the window in the effort to make a point, which the Weekly Standard is only too happy to demonstrate with its attempt at balance:

The only nastiness I heard during the day was an outburst, apparently provoked by Obama supporters who wandered into the crowd outside just as I had to leave. I was too far away to hear the exact exchange, so I couldn’t write it up—although clearly such limitations don’t limit the MSMers who repeat the “kill him” myth—but others were closer and able to report on the friendly, tolerant rhetoric of the Left, whose members were calling McCain a “murderer.”

Obviously one can point out that in addition to calling Obama a murderer, the right has aggressively and falsely called him a baby killer.  But I don’t understand how calling a man a murderer, presumably for his role as a warmonger, is in any way equivalent to calling for a man’s assasination.

Its bullshit like this that feeds the fire of the violent right wing and seeks to muffle media coverage.

The question reporters ought to be asking to the campaign is why haven’t McCain and Palin made forceful statements against both the explicit violence and its implicit sources?  The Republicans should answer for relying on veiled nativist attacks and exploitation of eliminationist sentiment.

Posted under Politics

Barring another stolen election (ironic given the white noise being made about acorn), Barack Obama is heading towards a decisive victory in November.  The stakes are as high as the passion and personal investment being poured into both sides of this campaign.

While there has been much focus on both candidate’s pledges to fight foreign terrorism, right-wing domestic terrorism has remained off the campaign radar.  This is deeply problematic given the anticipated likelihood of an increase in anti-liberal, anti-gay, anti-women and anti-minority violence come November 5th.

The source of that violence comes from the level of legitimacy we afford the ignorant and hateful dehuminization of target groups.  The Republican party has straight up embraced the crazier elements in their ranks for fear of losing their last vital reserves of faithful supporters.  Faithful being an apt word to describe the sheer lack of knowledge or reason informing their tenous grasp of reality.

The following video comes by way of Majikthise and Dana Blankenhorn:

I think its safe to say this is not a group of voters the Obama campaign will win over.  It is however a group of people who should not be left to their insane notion that their ideas are even valid.  Leaving these views alone to fester leads to closed door decisions like the one to install a nativist on the Prince William County, Virginia Board of County Supervisors (Hatewatch).

The outpouring of hate is not hard to understand given the games the McCain campaign is playing (The Guardian):

The Republicans have played on those fears and prejudices extremely well over the past week or so, but with the escalating hatred and disturbing language that has been espoused by some of their supporters at recent Republican rallies it seems that even McCain – forced this weekend to backtrack and start telling people what a “decent, family man” Obama is – now realizes that they may have gone a step too far.

At the most recent rallies, Republican supporters have cried out “kill him!”, “bomb Obama!” and “terrorist” in reference to Obama. Shouts of “treason” and other racial epithets have also been hurled.

I don’t think there is any solid indication McCain’s campaign realizes they’ve gone to far.  I think they’ve simply locked up a section of the vote at the cost of future political stability, a price they are all too willing to pay.  So much so their slogan “Country First” takes on a whole new meaning.

What we need to do is smash the lies and reason-like-substitutes being pushed around as firmly as we can.  This level of willful ignorance and anger will only be exacerbated by a Democratic win.

Posted under Politics

Sarah Palin abused her power as governor in troopergate.  You’ll recall Palin pre-emptively cleared herself of any wrongdoing:

Palin pre-empts state report, clears self in probe.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – On the eve of a report on a legislative panel’s abuse-of-power investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report clearing her of any wrongdoing.

This smashes her credibility with a bridge to nowhere sized hammer.  The sheer arrogance, lack of judgement and disconnection with reality inherent in the McCain campaign’s decision to issue the false report is is endemic to both Republicans.  It echoes John’s decision to declare himself the winner of the debate before his campaign officially declared he’d even take part.  And who could forget McCain’s claim one could “walk freely” in Bagdhad (with “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.“)?

The conflict between Palingate’s reality and McCain-Palin’s claims mirrors the campaign’s approach to the economy where McCain famously declared “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” as recently as September 15th.  The Obama/Biden campaign’s response sums up the problem with John McCain and Sarah Palin (The Trail, emphasis mine):

Sen. Barack Obama seized on McCain’s assessment of the health of the economy, blasting the Republican for being “disturbingly out of touch” with the reality that everyday Americans face.

“I just think he doesn’t know,” Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. “He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works…. Why else would he say, today, of all days — just a few hours ago — that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? Senator — what economy are you talking about?”

Time and again both McCain and Palin have showed a deep rift with reality and a zealous lack of hesistation in driving arrogantly ahead regardless.  America now has a clear picture of how team McCain will govern if they win the White House in November.

Posted under News, Politics

Aggressive new anti-choice language is going to be reinforced, not challenged, by the media in the lea dup to the election.  Specifically anti-choicers are doing everything they can to paint Obama as a baby killer.  This line of attack relies on a single bill, the purposely misnamed Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

Back to the bill, it was a crafty attempt by the anti-choice movement to mask their intentions (they seem to have a lot of trouble when they are upfront and honest):

The antis want to redefine these fetuses as “born alive” and require that doctors provide “resuscitation.” As a state senator, Obama saw BAIPA for what it was: an ideologically-motivated ploy to vilify women and doctors who choose abortion. On the state Senate floor on April 4, 2002, he explained, “This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”

The horribly misnamed pro-life movement tried to pull a fast one on reproductive choice, and Barack Obama saw clear through it.  The “Born Alive” act wasn’t about protecting babies.  It was about using lies to force a religious viewpoint on a secular nation.  Obama stood up to it.

Given this, it isn’t surprising that Bill O’Reilly is using that language to defend McCain (and surreptitiously attack Obama)

Read More…

Posted under News, Politics

Much has been said in this presidential election cycle about the concept of “experience” – during the Democrat primaries, Clinton had it and Obama supposedly did not.  That stigma has followed Obama into the general election, with McCain (at 72 years old and in Washington for 25 years) and pundits claiming that he has greater “experience”.  Ironically, the Arizona senator has taken up/stolen “Change” as the mantra for his campaign, while contradictorily at the same time emphasizing his long tenure in Washington.

Those contradictions aside, what is really meant by “experience”?  It appears that many believe that wisdom and competence accrues simply by virtue of sticking around the capitol for a long time.  But there are other connotations the term has taken on, particularly with the emergence of Sarah Palin onto the political scene (I’ll leave the quibbling over whether governorship in Alaska rates as being in the political scene).  Democrats, even many leftists, are now decrying Palin’s lack of “experience” as a fatal flaw of her candidacy.  But I think the attribution is disingenuous, and that “experience” is being used in place of “ideology” and “race” (in the case of Obama).

The Contradictions of Sarah Palin

In Palin’s case, critics are actually being unfair in accusing her of inexperience.  Her background is still incomplete, but we know the following: She comes from what appears to be a working class family (her mother a secretary and father a school teacher) and attended public school.  She worked as a reporter while raising a family.  She became involved in politics at a local level, eventually becoming the mayor.  Within 20 years of graduating from college, she won office as the governor of Alaska.

Palin did these things – as a woman – in a remote part of the country.  Although possessing white privilege, as well as privileges based on her religion and sexual orientation, it is remarkable in this country that a woman raising a family ascended through civic ranks in such a fashion.    She was not born into the ownership class of the United States; not born into wealth, nor a prestigious family, and didn’t benefit from powerful connections gained from attending elite schools.  We can (and damn well better) challenge her ideology, but we should not challenge her lack of time spent in Washington as something that makes her less than qualified.

“Experience” Means Nothing

“Experience”, as interpreted literally in the political dialogue, is virtually irrelevant.  Frankly, we shouldn’t care if a candidate has been a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations or Foreign Affairs when it comes to international policy.   We shouldn’t care if someone has been elected 20 times to their seat in the House.  Winning elections and sitting on committees to not inherenly impart wisdom or even comprehension.  John McCain still doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shi’a, and he’s been in the Senate for 21 years.

We shouldn’t reject Palin because she doesn’t have experience.  We should reject her, however, because she is a terribly ignorant candidate, unfamiliar with even the most basic institutions of U.S. government.   We should reject Palin because she is a tokenistic attempt to garner female support based on identity politics.  We should reject Palin because she was chosen because of her radical right-wing ideology and lack of respect for the rights of others.  We should reject Palin because she is a hypocrite who would likely increase the failures of the Bush administration. And the list goes on.

And if we had any other choice, we should reject Obama – not because he lacks experience – but because he is an unprincipled corporate candidate who says what is needed to be elected.  We should reject Obama – if we had a better option – because he is not an anti-war candidate, but in fact a long-time supporter of the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations and because he actively pledges to escalate war.  If we weren’t forced to choose between him and a Republican slate that would reverse judicial gains won by generations, we should reject Obama as violating his Constitutional oath by refusing to challenge the illegalities of the Bush administration.  And the list goes on.

Who We Need

We don’t need experience in a president.  We need a sane, rational, compassionate person with a willingness to respect national and international law.  We might be better off choosing a citizen, at random, who isn’t financed by lobbyists, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, oil companies, and who isn’t surrounded by advisors who come from centers of power and wealth in the country.  In this sense, “experience” has also come to mean, among other definitions, being approved by sectors of the ownership class in the country.  The nominees from both parties are far too corrupt, far too owned, to view the world in a common sense fashion.  Would it really be a worse system to pick 10 citizens at random, put them on the national stage, let them speak their minds, and let the country choose the best of them?

Posted under Politics