Just for fun...

'Palin Syrah' Wine Drops in Sales After Sarah Palin Veep Pick

Posted by The Serious Eats Team, September 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Editor's note: This dispatch comes to us from wine guru Amy Monroe. She works in the grape business in the Bay Area, and literally stumbled across the "Palin Syrah" this month at a San Francisco wine bar. "How can you not write something about it?" she thought. The Palin label is inexpensive (about $13 a bottle), organic, and Chilean—attributes that don't necessarily make it a cult wine—plus it's relatively invisible on a Google search. Thanks, Amy, for enlightening us on the Palin Syrah! —Erin

Words by Amy Monroe | Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin might not be fond of San Francisco, but one San Francisco wine bar is fond of Palin Syrah. Or rather, it was.

"It was our best selling wine before (the V.P. announcement),” said Chris Tavelli, owner of Yield Wine Bar, which has offered Palin Syrah, a certified organic wine from Chile, by the glass since July. But after Sen. John McCain tagged Sarah Palin as his running mate, sales of the wine with the conservative's inverted name plummeted—not surprising in famously liberal San Francisco.

As with the GOP ticket, the Palin falls second in the lineup. The wine’s tasting note reads as it did when Tavelli wrote it months ago: white pepper, madrone, dry. Incidentally, a madrone is an evergreen found primarily in the Pacific Northwest that bears red berries in the fall. When the berries dry up, they are replaced by hooked barbs that latch onto large animals for migration.

Even though sales are down, the wine—like Palin the politician—draws lots of attention and comments. One Yield regular suggested that Tavelli amend the wine’s tasting note to read: moosemeat, salmon, hint of gunpowder.

When Tavelli chose the wine, which is imported exclusively by North Berkeley Imports, Palin wasn’t on his radar screen. Any parallels people draw between Palin Syrah and Sarah Palin are a “total coincidence,” Tavelli said.

Despite the steep sales drop, Tavelli plans to keep “Palin the wine” on his list—for now. With only two cases left in stock, he’ll sell it until it’s gone.

But as for whether a reorder is in Palin’s future, Tavelli is more tentative. “I don’t know. I guess it depends on how the election goes.”

About the author: Amy Monroe works in the wine business in the Bay Area, where she is only one paper shy of her diploma from the Wine & Spirits Education Trust. When asked whether she prefers red or white, she answers, "whatever's good."

"beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North"

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?

For the first time in 100 years, and contrary to a long-standing legal prohibition, an active duty military unit is permanently assigned inside the U.S.

Glenn Greenwald

Sep. 24, 2008 | (updated below - Update II)

Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:

They'll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it."

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," said Cloutier, describing the experience as "your worst muscle cramp ever -- times 10 throughout your whole body". . . .

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."

Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant the President this radical new power.

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here.

As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States -- under the command of the President -- for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?

UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President's powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.

UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

Fake it, if you can't get out of making it.

McCain Wins Debate

Although the fate of tonight's presidential debate in Mississippi remains very much up in the air, John McCain has apparently already won it -- if you believe an Internet ad an astute reader spotted next to this piece in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal this morning.

"McCain Wins Debate!" declares the ad which features a headshot of a smiling McCain with an American flag background. Another ad spotted by our eagle-eyed observer featured a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis declaring: "McCain won the debate-- hands down."

Here's the screenshot.

By Chris Cillizza

It's usually important to remember history, right?

Keating 5 ring a bell?

McCain's past collides with the present Wall Street debacle.

Rosa Brooks

September 25, 2008

Once upon a time, a politician took campaign contributions and favors from a friendly constituent who happened to run a savings and loan association. The contributions were generous: They came to about $200,000 in today's dollars, and on top of that there were several free vacations for the politician and his family, along with private jet trips and other perks. The politician voted repeatedly against congressional efforts to tighten regulation of S&Ls, and in 1987, when he learned that his constituent's S&L was the target of a federal investigation, he met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off.

That politician was John McCain, and his generous friend was Charles Keating, head of Lincoln Savings & Loan. While he was courting McCain and other senators and urging them to oppose tougher regulation of S&Ls, Keating was also investing his depositors' federally insured savings in risky ventures. When those lost money, Keating tried to hide the losses from regulators by inducing his customers to switch from insured accounts to uninsured (and worthless) bonds issued by Lincoln's near-bankrupt parent company. In 1989, it went belly up -- and more than 20,000 Lincoln customers saw their savings vanish.

Keating went to prison, and McCain's Senate career almost ended. Together with the rest of the so-called Keating Five -- Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), John Glenn (D-Ohio), Don Riegle (D-Mich.) and Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), all of whom had also accepted large donations from Keating and intervened on his behalf -- McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and ultimately reprimanded for "poor judgment."

But the savings and loan crisis mushroomed. Eventually, the government spent about $125 billion in taxpayer dollars to bail out hundreds of failed S&Ls that, like Keating's, fell victim to a combination of private-sector greed and the "poor judgment" of politicians like McCain.

The $125 billion seems like small change compared to the $700-billion price tag for the Bush administration's proposed Wall Street bailout. But the root causes of both crises are the same: a lethal mix of deregulation and greed.

Today's meltdown began when unscrupulous mortgage lenders pushed naive borrowers to sign up for loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The original lenders didn't care: They pocketed the upfront fees and quickly sold the loans to others, who sold them to others still. With the government MIA, soon mortgage-backed securities were zipping around the globe. But by the time many ordinary people began to struggle to make their mortgage payments, the numerous "good" loans (held by borrowers able to pay) had gotten hopelessly mixed up with the bad loans. Investors and banks started to panic about being left with the hot potato -- securities backed mainly by worthless loans. And so began the downward spiral of a credit crunch, short-selling, stock sell-offs and bankruptcies.

Could all this have been prevented? Sure. It's not rocket science: A sensible package of regulatory reforms -- like those Barack Obama has been pushing since well before the current meltdown began -- could have kept this most recent crisis from escalating, just as maintaining reasonable regulatory regimes for S&Ls in the '80s could have prevented that crisis (McCain learned this the hard way).

But, despite his political near-death experience as a member of the Keating Five, McCain continued to champion deregulation, voting in 2000, for instance, against federal regulation of the kind of financial derivatives at the heart of today's crisis.

Shades of the Keating Five scandal don't end there. This week, for instance, news broke that until August, the lobbying firm owned by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was paid $15,000 a month by Freddie Mac, one of the mortgage giants implicated in the current crisis (now taken over by the government and under investigation by the FBI). Apparently, Freddie Mac's plan was to gain influence with McCain's campaign in hopes that he would help shield it from pesky government regulations. And until very recently, Freddie Mac executives probably figured money paid to Davis' firm was money well spent. "I'm always in favor of less regulation," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in March.

These days, McCain is singing a different tune.

"There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week, explaining the sudden mass conversion of so many onetime free marketeers into champions of robust government intervention. Fair enough. But as you try to figure out what and who can get us out of this mess, beware of those who now embrace regulation with the fervor of new converts.

Humane Society Endorses Barack Obama

Click.

the Washington Post and the Candidates' Tax Proposals

Interested in finding out which plan best suits you?
Click here (there’s a pretty chart, too)!

McCain's Pinocchio Test

Obama's Fannie Mae 'Connection'

"Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill."
--McCain video release, September 18, 2008.

An already nasty presidential election campaign is getting nastier. The meltdown on Wall Street has touched off frantic attempts by both the McCain and Obama camps to secure political advantage and indulge in guilt by association. Over the past 24 hours, both campaigns have issued video press releases (let's not call them ads until they actually air somewhere) attempting to show that the other side's "advisers" are somehow responsible for the crisis. The latest McCain attack is particularly dubious.

The Facts

The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae.

The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply.

The Pinocchio Test

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

Interesting points on race issues..

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.


And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.

(Red Room Editor's Note: This online community of writers welcomes all the new members who have found us by way of Tim Wise's thought-provoking entries and who have taken the time to comment. We encourage you to read Tim's follow-up here, and to discover all the other great writing on other Red Room blogs and original articles.)

Palin vs. Pregnant Teens

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014534.php

September 3, 2008

PALIN AND PREGNANT TEENS.... The Washington Post's Paul Kane reports that Sarah Palin, as governor, used a line-item veto to "slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live."

As it turns out, Alaskan lawmakers passed the state's budget, but Palin started taking out funding she found objectionable. In this case, she cut funding for Covenant House Alaska from $5 million to $3.9 million. The practical result, of course, is that fewer teen moms in Alaska would be eligible for shelters and educational programs.

The obvious criticism, I suppose, is to relate this to Palin's own family, but there's a more important policy point to make here. TNR's Michelle Cottle explains the significance of Palin's position:

I'm sorry, but a politician who opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and who opposes comprehensive sex education should be at the forefront of championing support systems that make it easier for young mothers to keep their babies.

I would have assumed Palin herself felt this way. After all, she is a proud member of Feminists for Life, an anti-abortion nonprofit whose stated aim is to give women a real choice -- that is, to make certain that women faced with unplanned pregnancies have access to the information and support systems that will enable/encourage them not to have an abortion. Surely a program aimed at assisting the most desperate of young mothers -- those whose boyfriends aren't amenable to a shotgun wedding or who don't have a strong family support system -- would be something a pro-life feminist such as Palin would work to expand not destroy.

Pro-life conservatives have for years faced accusations by abortion-rights activists that they only give a damn about a woman and her baby until the moment that baby is born. After that: Best of luck! Don't come looking to us for any help! Palin's rough handling of Passage House does nothing to combat that unfortunate image.

Alaska Women Reject Palin' rally was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state.'

'Alaska Women Reject Palin' Rally is HUGE!

I attended the Welcome Home rally for Sarah Palin this morning. Hooo. It was an experience. About a thousand (maybe) hard-core Palin supporters showed up to hear her speak at the new Dena'ina Convention Center in downtown Anchorage.

After shaking it off with a good double shot of espresso, and a brisk walk back to my car, it was time to head to the Alaska Women Reject Palin rally. It was to be held outside on the lawn in front of the Loussac Library in midtown Anchorage. Home made signs were encouraged, and the idea was to make a statement that Sarah Palin does not speak for all Alaska women, or men. I had no idea what to expect.

The rally was organized by a small group of women, talking over coffee. It made me wonder what other things have started with small groups of women talking over coffee. It's probably an impressive list. These women hatched the plan, printed up flyers, posted them around town, and sent notices to local media outlets. One of those media outlets was KBYR radio, home of Eddie Burke, a long-time uber-conservative Anchorage talk show host. Turns out that Eddie Burke not only announced the rally, but called the people who planned to attend the rally "a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots", and read the home phone numbers of the organizers aloud over the air, urging listeners to call and tell them what they thought. The women, of course, received many nasty, harassing and threatening messages.

So, as I jettisoned myself from the jaws of the 'Drill Baby Drill' crowd and toward the mystery rally at the library, I felt a bit apprehensive. I'd been disappointed before by the turnout at other rallies. Basically, in Anchorage, if you can get 25 people to show up at an event, it's a success. So, I thought to myself, if we can actually get 100 people there that aren't sent by Eddie Burke, we'll be doing good. A real statement will have been made. I confess, I still had a mental image of 15 demonstrators surrounded by hundreds of menacing "socialist baby-killing maggot" haters.

It's a good thing I wasn't tailgating when I saw the crowd in front of the library or I would have ended up in somebody's trunk. When I got there, about 20 minutes early, the line of sign wavers stretched the full length of the library grounds, along the edge of the road, 6 or 7 people deep! I could hardly find a place to park. I nabbed one of the last spots in the library lot, and as I got out of the car and started walking, people seemed to join in from every direction, carrying signs.

Never, have I seen anything like it in my 17 and a half years living in Anchorage. The organizers had someone walk the rally with a counter, and they clicked off well over 1400 people (not including the 90 counter-demonstrators). This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state. I was absolutely stunned. The second most amazing thing is how many people honked and gave the thumbs up as they drove by. And even those that didn't honk looked wide-eyed and awe-struck at the huge crowd that was growing by the minute. This just doesn't happen here.

Then, the infamous Eddie Burke showed up. He tried to talk to the media, and was instantly surrounded by a group of 20 people who started shouting O-BA-MA so loud he couldn't be heard. Then passing cars started honking in a rhythmic pattern of 3, like the Obama chant, while the crowd cheered, hooted and waved their signs high.

So, if you've been doing the math… Yes. The Alaska Women Reject Palin rally was significantly bigger than Palin's rally that got all the national media coverage! So take heart, sit back, and enjoy the photo gallery. Feel free to spread the pictures around (links are appreciated) to anyone who needs to know that Sarah Palin most definitely does not speak for all Alaskans. The citizens of Alaska, who know her best, have things to say.

"When Karl Rove is saying your political ads have gone too far, you know you must be doing something dishonest."

Karl Rove: McCain's Ads Have Gone Too Far

When Karl Rove is saying your political ads have gone too far, you know you must be doing something dishonest.

The former Bush chief strategist, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said that John McCain had stretched the truth in his recent round of attacks against Barack Obama, in the process opening up the Arizonan to a round of effective counter-attacks.

"McCain has gone in his ads one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100-percent-truth test," said Rove. "Both campaigns ought to be careful about... there ought to be an adult who says: 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?'"

McCain has received a heaping dose of criticism late this week for launching a series of advertisements that could be categorized as dishonest if not downright lies. The Obama camp, in a memo to reporters Sunday morning -- entitled a "Dishonorable, Dishonest Campaign" -- highlighted a number of these pieces. Joe Klein, of Time magazine called one spot the "sleaziest" he had ever seen. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, defined the episode as a "blizzard of lies." On Sunday, the St. Petersburg Times, ran an editorial entitled: "Campaign Of Lies Disgraces McCain," while the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman, wrote that "to McCain the truth is expandable."

That Rove would acknowledge truth in these complaints is somewhat remarkable. The man known as Bush's brain made a reputation of slinging mud at the opposition and waiting for it to stick.

But it should be noted, Rove's complaints with McCain's strategy was not that it had elicited the condemnation of groups like politifact or factcheck.org -- "You can't trust the fact check organization in all respect," he said. "They are human beings and individuals; they have got their own biases in there." Rather, he argued that by exaggerating so wildly, the Republican presidential nominee had opened himself up to political attacks.

"They don't need to attack each other in this way," he said. "They have legitimate points to make about each other."

UPDATE: Sure enough, the Obama campaign weighs in... gleefully.

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove - the man who held the previous record - said McCain's ads have gone too far," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Better than eyes on the back of your head.

"Skin vision."

Palin defended her practice of billing Alaska taxpayers for more than 300 nights she spent at home

September 10, 2008

Palin Aides Defend Billing State for Time at Home

By MICHAEL LUO and LESLIE WAYNE

Responding to criticism from Democrats, campaign aides to Gov. Sarah Palin on Tuesday defended her practice of billing Alaska taxpayers for more than 300 nights she spent at home in her first year-and-a-half in office.

Ms. Palin received a “per diem” expense allowance for 312 nights she spent at her home in Wasilla, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The $60-a-day allowance is available for state employees when traveling on official state business to cover meals and other sundry expenses. Ms. Palin’s per diems, which included some charges for partial days, totaled $17,059, from Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office, through June 30, 2008, the most recent data available, according to Sharon Leighow, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office. Ms. Palin’s salary is $125,000 a year.

Ms. Palin was able to receive the allotment while she was at home because her official “duty station” is listed as Juneau, the state capital, aides said. That allowed Ms. Palin to file for per diems while she was working out of her Anchorage office and commuting from her home about 45 miles away in Wasilla. Juneau is nearly 600 miles away.

The practice of billing for staying at home seems to be unusual. Many officials said it would not be allowed in their states, including California, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, as well as other jurisdictions. On the federal level, officials said members of Congress do not get per diem allowances for routine home visits.

“To charge the citizens of any state for home visits is somewhat beyond the pale,” said Chuck Ardo, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat who supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary.

Democrats immediately seized on the revelation on Tuesday to challenge the image of fiscal discipline that Ms. Palin, the Republican running mate of Senator John McCain, has sought to convey as part of her message of bringing change to Washington. Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin have frequently cited her record in Alaska as proof of her willingness to shake things up, saying she rid the state of a personal chef in the governor’s mansion and put the state’s private jet on eBay. (The plane did not actually sell on eBay but was sold at a loss later to another buyer.)

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign circulated the Post article to reporters on Tuesday. Ms. Palin’s staff and the McCain campaign said the charges to the state were entirely appropriate under Alaska rules.

“Every action taken by Governor Palin was open and transparent,” said Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign. “It is only logical that if she is traveling for the government, that her expenses be paid for.”

Ms. Comella said that Ms. Palin’s travel expenses were “80 percent below” those of her predecessor, Frank H. Murkowski, and that she had achieved this savings by selling the state’s plane, flying coach when traveling on the state’s business and driving herself to work.

“Her actions mirrored her promise when she went into office of assuring accountability and transparency in government,” Ms. Comella said.

Ms. Comella declined, however, to release the details of Ms. Palin’s travels as governor and the per diems that she had received.

Rules for reimbursing lawmakers for official travel vary by state. New York, for example, seems to allow for the possibility of an arrangement similar to Ms. Palin’s, but Gov. David A. Paterson does not receive a per diem allowance while he is at home in Harlem because that is designated his “official station,” or his primary residence, said Errol Cockfield, a spokesman.

When he is in Albany, the capital, Mr. Paterson stays at the governor’s mansion and does not receive any allowance, Mr. Cockfield said.

Mr. Paterson technically could have designated his official station as Albany and filed for a per diem for his nights at home, but that “would raise some real questions,” said Dennis Tompkins, a spokesman for the state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli.

The comptroller’s office scrutinizes, for example, the per diem requests filed by state legislators, said Mr. Tompkins, because their official stations are supposed to be their residences in their home districts, so they should file for allowances only when they are in Albany.

“If all of a sudden you’re collecting per diems for more than half a year, we would redesignate your official station as that place,” Mr. Tompkins said.

Members of Congress can be reimbursed for travel expenses if they return to their home states for official business, but do not get any kind of per diem when they are simply at home.

Ms. Leighow, in the governor’s office, said Ms. Palin had not received a per diem since being selected by Mr. McCain as his running mate.

How Did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans? Let Me Count the Ways...

How Did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans? Let Me Count the Ways...

Last week's Republican convention sure made every superficial effort to come off as pro-Troop and pro-Veteran. And, of course, the media ate it up, not challenging a single thing. But to those of us who did serve, it was offense after offense after offense. Let's count the ways:

McCain Didn't Mention Veterans' Care: Maybe because it's because he has a terrible record, but not once in John McCain's speech did he talk about taking care of those who served their nation in the military. With exploding rates of PTSD, suicide, homelessness among veterans. With ridiculous wait times for veterans seeking care, and a VA that every major vets group says is woefully underfunded. With administrators dumping vets out of the veterans care system by diagnosing them with a lesser mental injury than they have. Not. A. Single. Word. And, with the shame of...

Walter Reed: What a slap in the face. The first photo that John McCain stood in front of was Walter Reed. Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Chalk it up to someone in the campaign not knowing the difference between the two, but what I find even more offensive is this: At some point John McCain asked his campaign what was going to be on the screen behind him. And someone told him the first picture would be Walter Reed Army Medical Center. John McCain didn't object - even though he voted against closing tax loopholes to help fund military hospitals like Walter Reed. But that wasn't the only bit of fake imagery....

"Phony Soldiers": For the amount that Rush Limbaugh likes to rant on "phony soldiers," there was a big silence and others from the mainstream media on the fact that the McCain campaign used stock footage of actors pretending to be soldiers in a video, intended to show how pro-military McCain is. It's actually kind of fitting - phony soldiers to promote a phony record on military and veterans' issues.

Speaking of phony: Remember that faux-outrage from the McCain campaign when General Wesley Clark dared to point out that being a POW isn't a qualification for being Commander in Chief? Boy, the McCain campaign wouldn't let up on that. Where were they when Fred Thompson said the same exact thing?

Real outrage: But, there were some things to be angry about. First, Sarah Palin repeatedly saying that her son was deploying for Iraq on September 11. First, not only is this not exactly true, but if she sincerely believed it to be true, she would be knowingly violating Operational Security (OPSEC), which says you should never tell the enemy when people and units are going to be landing in Iraq. Thankfully, Palin was fudging the truth, and not endangering the troops. So, she either knew she wasn't telling the truth, or she thought she was and thought violating OPSEC was worth the political points. That, however, hasn't kept the media from finding someone willing to leak all the movements of Track and his unit, and publishing them, violating OPSEC. Second, there's the fact that right after the Republican convention, the party produced a bunch of flags that they stole from the Democratic convention in Denver, in an attempt to "prove" the Democrats were throwing out the flag. In fact, workers in Denver were collecting all the flags left at Invesco Field, to send to community events around the country, where other patriotic Americans might want to wave the flag. So, to promote a complete fabrication, Republicans stole flags that some five-year old kid might have wanted to wave on Main Street. Stay classy...

It's things like this that caused those troops deployed to donate to Obama by a 6-1 ratio.

Though many in the media may lap up the lies, the distortions, and fake representations, troops certainly don't. We know the difference between fantasy and reality.

And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."

Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.

But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose. Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."

In short, Bush knew that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.

And that, perhaps, was the biggest insult to those of us in the military, out of many, coming from the Republican National Convention.

Crossposted at VetVoice.com

PalinPalinPalin :|

“McCain hates pork, just not his own.”

“But the fact is that they are the symptom of a disease", and "Lobbyists are good people. They’re decent people.”

Under Palin’s mayoral leadership in Wasilla, Alaska, rape victims were charged for their own rape kits.

…more.

...now for fun news: "Boeing jet will be turned into a hostel".

Maybe we can take up aerial hunting next!

Palin's glasses are becoming a bipartisan must-have fashion accessory.

...and there's a knock-off guide.

Ow. My optimism hurts.

"McCain stopped, glared at her, raised his left arm ready to strike her, composed himself and pushed the wheelchair away from him"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080907/pl_mcclatchy/3035300
McCain's history of hot temper raises concerns

By David Lightman and Matt Stearns, McClatchy NewspapersSun Sep 7, 6:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON — John McCain made a quick stop at the Capitol one day last spring to sit in on Senate negotiations on the big immigration bill, and John Cornyn was not pleased.

Cornyn, a mild-mannered Texas Republican, saw a loophole in the bill that he thought would allow felons to pursue a path to citizenship.

McCain called Cornyn's claim "chicken-s---," according to people familiar with the meeting, and charged that the Texan was looking for an excuse to scuttle the bill. Cornyn grimly told McCain he had a lot of nerve to suddenly show up and inject himself into the sensitive negotiations.

"F--- you," McCain told Cornyn, in front of about 40 witnesses.

It was another instance of the Republican presidential candidate losing his temper, another instance where, as POW-MIA activist Carol Hrdlicka put it, "It's his way or no way."

There's a lengthy list of similar outbursts through the years: McCain pushing a woman in a wheelchair, trying to get an Arizona Republican aide fired from three different jobs, berating a young GOP activist on the night of his own 1986 Senate election and many more.

McCain observers say the incidents have been blown out of proportion.

"I've never seen anything in the way of an outburst of temper that struck me as anything out of the ordinary," said McCain biographer Robert Timberg .

"Those reports are overstated," said Rives Richey, who attended Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va ., with McCain in the early 1950s.

Historians point out that it's not unusual for a president to have a fierce temper, but most knew how to keep it under control.

" Harry Truman wrote scathing letters, but he almost never sent them," said author Robert Dallek .

"George Washington spent a lifetime trying to control his temper," added historian Richard Norton Smith .

But Washington didn't have YouTube replaying videos of his tantrums, nor did he have to make decisions about nuclear weapons.

HE WAS FEISTY

At age 2, McCain's tantrums were so intense that he'd hold his breath for a few minutes and pass out. His parents would dunk him in cold water to "cure" him, he wrote in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers ."

"I have spent much of my life choosing my own attitude, often carelessly, often for no better reason than to indulge a conceit," he wrote. He conceded that some of his actions have been embarrassing, and "others I deeply regret."

He was a tough little guy. At Episcopal High , he was a 114-pound wrestler classmates called "Punk" and "McNasty."

Richey, though, noted that such monikers weren't unusual in those days. "There was a tremendous amount of sarcasm in the way we talked to each other at Episcopal," he recalled. "That's the way we all talked to each other."

McCain, Richey said, "was not looking for a fight. He was feisty."

McCain entered the Naval Academy in 1954, and he was popular, the leader of a group that Timberg described as the Bad Bunch, known largely for its ability to have a good time.

Malcolm Matheson , who knew McCain at Episcopal High and stayed friendly with him in college, said his buddy had no trouble controlling his temper in those days.

"He was a little guy, but he was tough, and no bully ever got in his face," Matheson said.

But as McCain ascended in politics, he began to acquire a reputation for hotheadedness. On election night 1986, then- Arizona Republican Party executive director Jon Hinz recalled, McCain was unhappy, even angry, even though he'd just won a U.S. Senate seat and his party had just made a virtually unprecedented sweep of state offices.

McCain had hoped that night would help launch him as a national figure. Instead, when the 5-foot-9 senator-elect spoke at the Phoenix victory party, the podium was too tall.

"You couldn't see his mouth," Hinz said.

A furious McCain sought out Robert Wexler , the Young Republican head in charge of arrangements.

"McCain kept pointing his finger in Wexler's chest, berating him," Hinz recalled. The 6-foot-6 Hinz stepped between them and told McCain to cut it out. "I told him I'll make sure there's an egg crate around next time," he said. McCain walked away angrily.

About a year later, McCain reportedly erupted again, this time at a meeting with Arizona's then-Gov. Evan Mecham , who was about to be impeached after being indicted on felony charges.

Karen Johnson , then Mecham's secretary and now an Arizona state senator, recalled how McCain told Mecham that he was "causing the party a lot of problems" and was an embarrassment to the party.

"Sen. McCain got very angry," Johnson recalled, "and I said, 'Why are you talking to the governor like this? You're causing problems yourself. You're an embarrassment.' "

Johnson would go on to work at three different jobs over the next five years, and she said that each time, McCain would contact her boss and try to get her removed.

The McCain campaign didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.

LOSING HIS COOL

When John McCain came to the Senate in 1987, he quickly got two reputations: a Republican who'd do business with Democrats on tough issues and an impatient senator who was often gruff and temperamental.

In January, Sen. Thad Cochran , R-Miss., told The Boston Globe that, "the thought of (McCain) being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." (Cochran has since endorsed McCain.)

Added Sen. Christopher Bond , R-Mo., who has a long list of vociferous, sometimes personal disagreements with McCain, "His charm takes a little getting used to." (Bond, too, supports him.)

Democrats are less guarded.

"There have been times when he's just exploded, " said Sen. Tom Harkin , D- Iowa .

"Look, around here, people lose their tempers once in a while. But it doesn't happen very often, and it usually happens in some contextual framework. A lot of times there's just not much of a contextual framework for his blowing up."

John Raidt worked for McCain more than 15 years. "Yeah, he could get prickly," he said. "Sometimes that's exactly what's needed to move an issue or get attention. I think he uses it as a tool."

Stories abound on Capitol Hill: How McCain told Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici , R-N.M., how "only an a-hole" would craft a budget like he did. Or the time in 1989 when he confronted Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama , then a Democrat and now a Republican, because Shelby had promised to vote for McCain friend John Tower as secretary of defense, and then Shelby voted against Tower.

McCain later wrote how, after the vote, he approached Shelby "to bring my nose within an inch of his as I screamed out my intense displeasure over his deceit . . . the incident is one of the occasions when my temper lived up to its exaggerated legend."

Cochran recalled earlier this summer that he saw McCain manhandle a Sandinista official during a 1987 diplomatic mission in Nicaragua .

Cochran told the Biloxi Sun Herald that McCain was talking, and, "I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever."

McCain said the incident never took place. "I must say, I did not admire the Sandinistas much," he told a news conference. "But there was never anything of that nature. It just didn't happen."

Former Kansas Sen. Robert Dole , who led the mission, couldn't be reached to comment.

Back in Washington, families of POW-MIAs said they have seen McCain's wrath repeatedly. Some families charged that McCain hadn't been aggressive enough about pursuing their lost relatives and has been reluctant to release relevant documents. McCain himself was a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years during the Vietnam War.

In 1992, McCain sparred with Dolores Alfond , the chairwoman of the National Alliance of Families for the Return of America's Missing Servicemen and Women, at a Senate hearing. McCain's prosecutor-like questioning of Alfond — available on YouTube — left her in tears.

Four years later, at her group's Washington conference, about 25 members went to a Senate office building, hoping to meet with McCain. As they stood in the hall, McCain and an aide walked by.

Six people present have written statements describing what they saw. According to the accounts, McCain waved his hand to shoo away Jeannette Jenkins , whose cousin was last seen in South Vietnam in 1970, causing her to hit a wall.

As McCain continued walking, Jane Duke Gaylor , the mother of another missing serviceman, approached the senator. Gaylor, in a wheelchair equipped with portable oxygen, stretched her arms toward McCain.

"McCain stopped, glared at her, raised his left arm ready to strike her, composed himself and pushed the wheelchair away from him," according to Eleanor Apodaca , the sister of an Air Force captain missing since 1967.

McCain's staff wouldn't respond to requests for comment about specific incidents.

But Mark Salter , a longtime McCain aide who functions as the senator's alter ego and the co-author of his books, said that, "McCain gets intense, and intent on his argument."

His blowups with senators often result from colleagues being accustomed to deference, he said.

"A lot of these guys aren't used to that," Salter said, so they get annoyed when a peer gets emotional.

McCain's presidential campaign has tried to use his reputation to its advantage; in an early television ad, McCain said: "I didn't go to Washington to win the Mr. Congeniality award . . . . I love America. I love her enough to make some people angry."

CAN HE CONTROL IT?

There's no easy way to judge whether McCain's temper would make him a risky president.

"Yeah, he has a temper," said Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden , the Democratic vice-presidential nominee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman. "It's obvious. You've seen it.

"But is John whatever his opposition painted him to be, this unstable guy who came out of a prisoner or war camp not capable of (acting rationally)? I don't buy that at all."

Independent experts have some concerns about McCain's irascibility.

"Diplomacy is not often dealing with reasonable people," said Steve Clemons , an analyst at the New America Foundation , a centrist public policy group.

"In the nuclear age, you don't want someone flying off the handle, so it's a critical question: Can McCain control his temper?" asked Thomas De Luca , professor of political science at Fordham University in New York .

History is an inexact guide, because little evidence is available tying temper to action.

Richard Norton Smith has found that according to Tobias Lear , George Washington's secretary, "few sounds on earth could compare with that of George Washington swearing a blue streak."

On the other hand, Smith said, Washington could control himself. "One reason George Washington is this cold-blooded marble figure is that he became expert in controlling his temper," he said.

Other presidents have similar histories. Thomas Jefferson, Smith said, could be a "red-faced chief executive throwing his hat on the floor before stomping on it."

Truman had his angry letters, and one that got out showed quite a temper.

"It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful," Truman wrote Washington Post music critic Paul Hume in 1950, after Hume had panned first daughter Margaret Truman's singing performance.

Added the angry father, "Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes and perhaps a supporter below!"

Bill Clinton's infamous red-faced tirades tended to be endured by staffers in the privacy of the White House rather than public displays.

The important question, Dallek said, is whether and how McCain controls his outbursts. Though his aides insist that his temper is simply a way of expressing passion — and that he sometimes uses it for effect — some observers remain concerned.

"It seems the only way to deal with John McCain is to think the way he does," said Hinz, the former Arizona GOP official who now runs an insurance reform advocacy group in Phoenix . "If he gets more power, what's going to make him suddenly become a fuzzy, nice guy?"

As Mayor, ‘Hard-Core Fiscal Conservative’ Sarah Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/03/wasilla-in-debt/

The campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is presenting his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), as a reformer, fiscal conservative, and “tough minded budget cutter.” Other conservatives have latched onto this image - Phyllis Schlafly calls Palin “the total package” with “fiscal conservative credentials.”

Palin embraces the title, labeling herself a “hard-core fiscal conservative,” whose “agenda was to stop wasteful spending.

However, as mayor of Wasilla, AK, Palin “was not always the fiscal watchdog she has since boasted of being.”

During her term in office, Palin cut property taxes and other small taxes on business. But as the Anchorage Daily News points out, “She wasn’t doing this by shrinking government.” During her tenure, the budget of Wasilla (population 5,469 in 2000) “apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million.”

Palin also successfully pushed through a sales tax increase in Wasilla, which went to fund a $15 million sports complex. However, a land dispute over the sight of the complex led to “years of legal wrangling” and cost Wasilla almost $1.7 million, “a lot more than the roughly $125,000 the city would have paid in 1998 if it had closed a deal to buy the property outright.” Wasilla is still facing budget shortfalls from the case today.

When Palin left office in 2002, Wasilla had “racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt,” or roughly $3,000 of debt per resident.

But Palin’s approach actually brings her in line with McCain, whose own “massive tax cuts” “would recklessly exacerbate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration” and cause the largest deficit in 25 years.

McCain: Red, White and Outsourced

http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/14/mccain-red-white-and-outsourced/

McCain: Red, White and Outsourced

By: Tula Connell Thursday August 14, 2008 1:30 pm

Sen. John McCain paints himself as an all-American hero. So why has he opposed "Buy American," the law for government and military contracts?

In fact, not only has he opposed the law, he also says he "firmly objects" to it and has called it "ludicrous."

This week, he ducked a campaign visit to a Harley-Davidson plant in York, Pa., because—ooops—those Buy American provisions would have required the government to purchase American-made motorcycles.

As recently as 2003 and 2004, McCain voted to waive Buy American laws for defense systems and to exempt six European countries from Buy American requirements—effectively allowing products from those countries to be considered U.S. made in government and military contract bids.

When it comes to military contracts in the aviation and maritime industries, McCain not only embraces foreign corporations over U.S. workers. He wants foreign corporations to play a bigger role. In 2000, McCain voted to ease laws banning foreign control of U.S. airlines. Then he went even further: He voted to allow foreign control of U.S. airlines and to allow foreign airlines to operate on U.S. routes.

U.S. aviation workers already are struggling to maintain jobs, wages and health benefits in an industry rife with bankruptcies, mergers and failures. McCain's support of foreign airlines threatens U.S. jobs and would cause a race to the bottom for wages and outsourcing jobs.

McCain's job-killing votes go way back. In 1989, he voted to send defense technology and aviation manufacturing jobs to Japan as part of the development of a new aircraft weapons system. And then he went even further: He voted against an amendment requiring that U.S. firms share at least 40 percent of the work.

The cornerstone of U.S. maritime commercial law is the Jones Act that requires U.S. ships with U.S. crews on domestic port-to-port shipping routes. The act helps maintain U.S. jobs and a trained seafaring workforce and prevents unfair foreign competition. McCain has said he wants "to get rid of the Jones Act" and has actively worked to kill the Jones Act. He even introduced a bill to waive the requirement that U.S.-flagged ships be built in U.S. shipyards with U.S. workers.

These Senate votes by McCain to bleed the nation of family-supporting jobs are literally unknown. But they demonstrate his push for European-based EADS to get the Defense Department's $35 billion air fleet tanker contract and the recent revelation that he is behind the potential loss of 8,000 jobs in Ohio aren't isolated incidents. McCain has packed his campaign with job killers. Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, lobbied for the deal to kill Ohio's jobs. Randy Altschuler, who advises companies on how to ship jobs overseas, is giving McCain economic advice.

As McCain said when asked about America's lost jobs:

"I can't tell you these jobs are ever coming back. The old jobs aren't coming back."

McCain voted in favor of Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who commit identity fraud.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/14/sen-mccain-and-illegal-immigration/

Sen. McCain and illegal immigration

Monday, January 14, 2008

As we've noted in these pages, there is indeed much to admire about Sen. John McCain, ranging from his courage as a POW to his extraordinary leadership in pushing for the troop "surge" in Iraq. But this has not been the case with his disingenuous blustering on illegal immigration — particularly when his cosponsorship of mass-amnesty legislation with Sen. Edward Kennedy is raised. The Arizona Republican now says that, in the wake of last summer's defeat of "comprehensive immigration reform," he has "gotten the message" that the border must be secured before the status of illegals already in the United States can be dealt with.

That's fair enough. But it doesn't give Mr. McCain the right to shut people up when they ask legitimate questions about his immigration record — which includes cosponsoring legislation to permit illegal aliens to pay lower in-state tuition rates denied to some students that are in the country legally, supporting Social Security benefits for illegals and voting against an amendment last year that would have permanently barred gang members, terrorists and other criminals from the United States.

In a Jan. 5 debate, Mr. McCain declared that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "a liar, is lying." Several days before he won the New Hampshire primary, Mr. McCain was asked by a voter about criticism of his record. The senator replied: "I do not support, nor would I ever support, any services provided to someone who came to this country illegally, nor would I ever and [I] never have supported Social Security benefits for people who are in this country illegally." Any assertion to the contrary, he added "is absolutely false."

To be certain, there are some bright spots to Mr. McCain's immigration record. Last year, for example, he voted to permit the sharing of information contained in amnesty applications if requested by a law enforcement or intelligence agency and voted to make it more difficult for illegals to benefit from sanctuary-city policies. But time and again, he has sided with the pro-amnesty, open-borders crowd. Following is a partial listing of some of Mr. McCain's troubling actions on illegal immigration:

Supporting mass amnesty. The May 29, 2003, Tucson Citizen quoted Mr. McCain as stating that "Amnesty has to be an important part of" any immigration solution. He was part of the bipartisan coalition that tried to pass amnesty legislation in 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he voted in favor of S. 2611, legislation that would reward between 10 and 11 million illegals with amnesty if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine.

Supporting in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Mr. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 774, the Dream Act, providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The legislation would have enabled illegal aliens who entered the United States before age 16 to obtain a green card and then use their newly acquired status to obtain green cards for the millions of parents who illegally brought their children with them into the United States. Mr. McCain missed a Senate vote on the issue in October. He said that he would have opposed it on the Senate floor had he been there to vote.

Voted to kill border fence. In 2006, Mr. McCain voted for an amendment to S. 2611 offered by Sen. Arlen Specter to require consultation with the Mexican government concerning the construction of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to Numbers USA, an organization that lobbies against illegal immigration, this amendment would have effectively guaranteed that the border fence was never built.

Voted against permanently barring gang members and terrorists from the United States. Last year, Mr. McCain voted against an amendment (Senate Amendment 1184) introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, that would have permanently barred gang members, terrorists, sex offenders, alien absconders, aliens convicted of domestic violence and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs from the United States. The Cornyn Amendment was rejected on a 51-46 vote.

Voted in favor of Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who commit identity fraud. In 2006. Mr. McCain joined with Mr. Kennedy in working to defeat an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, that would have barred Social Security credits for work being done prior to their receiving amnesty — in other words, while working under a false Social Security number. The Ensign Amendment, (Senate Amendment 3985) was defeated on a 50-49 vote.

...and invasion's going strong.

Stalin just walked in and informed me that there was a tarantula in her bed.

"You know you’re gonna go deaf if that thing flies out at me."

Tarantula.
Under my foot.
I noticed it a split second before contact and so eloquently cried “OH SHIT!”

It was right across from mom’s room, and heading towards the place where she’ll more than likely shower when she gets home.

Bonding time with Stalin.

She ran and got a pot, rag, and flyswatter (rag to act as a lid, swatter to scoot it in), and it scurried under the underside of the linen cabinet.

It vanished.

We divvied up the weaponry.

Then with as much composure as two giggling idiots might consider aiming for, we began crawling around in the hall armed with the above tools, while trying to look up and under the cabinet and other potential hiding places we might have missed its sprint to… also while trying not to smack our heads together in the potential shock-leap if our hunt actually turned successful, and repeatedly, cautiously opening the cabinet doors.

We quickly grew indifferent, and went our separate ways, so… that fuzzy beast is still out there.
…and no, I doubt anyone will take advantage of the screen doors any more often.

Palin's Pastor preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview

September 2, 2008 12:17 PM

Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.

Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain's running mate.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.

Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain's running mate.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

Please click here for a video of Kalnins and Palin from June 8, 2008 (via wasillaag.net):

Palin's address, much of which was spent reflecting on the work of the church in which she grew up and was baptized, underscores the notion that her world view is deeply impacted by religion. In turn, her remarks raise important questions: mainly, what is Palin's faith and how exactly has it influenced her policies?

A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin's longtime spiritual home.

The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

It is impossible to determine how much Wasilla Assembly of God has shaped Palin's thinking. She was baptized there at the age of 12 and attended the church for most of her adult life. When Palin was inaugurated as governor, the founding pastor of the church delivered the invocation. In 2002, Palin moved her family to a nondenominational church, but she continues to worship at a related Assembly of God church in Juneau.

Moreover, she "has maintained a friendship with Wasilla Assembly of God and has attended various conferences and special meetings here," Kalnins' office said in a statement. "As for her personal beliefs," the statement added, "Governor Palin is well able to speak for herself on those issues."

Clearly, however, Palin views the church as the source of an important, if sometimes politically explosive, message. "Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place," she told the congregation in June. "What comes from this church I think has great destiny."

And if the political storm over Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright is any indication, Palin may face some political fallout over the more controversial teachings of Wasilla Assembly of God.

If the church had a political alignment, it would almost surely be conservative. In his sermons, Kalnins did not hide his affections for certain national politicians.

During the 2004 election season, he praised President Bush's performance during a debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his personal candidate preferences. "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry." Kalnins added: "If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time."

Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government's handling of Hurricane Katrina. "I hate criticisms towards the President," he said, "because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."

Much of his support for the current administration has come in the realm of foreign affairs. Kalnins has preached that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a "world war" over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.

What you see in a terrorist -- that's called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. ... Jesus called us to die. You're worried about getting hurt? He's called us to die. Listen, you know we can't even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. ... I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say "war mode." Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he's like the good shepherd, he's loving all the time and he's kind all the time. Oh yes he is -- but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war.

As for his former congregant and current vice presidential candidate, Kalnins has asserted that Palin's election as governor was the result of a "prophetic call" by another pastor at the church who prayed for her victory. "[He made] a prophetic declaration and then unfolds the kingdom of God, you know."

Even Palin expressed surprise at that pastor's advocacy for her candidacy. "He was praying over me," she said in June. "He's praying, 'Lord make a way, Lord make a way...' And I'm thinking, this guy's really bold, he doesn't even know what I'm gonna do, he doesn't know what my plans are, and he's praying not, 'Oh Lord, if it be your will may she become governor,' or whatever. No, he just prayed for it. He said, 'Lord, make a way, and let her do this next step.' And that's exactly what happened. So, again, very very powerful coming from this church."

In his sermons, Pastor Kalnins has also expressed beliefs that, while not directly political, lie outside of mainstream Christian thought.

He preaches repeatedly about the "end times" or "last days," an apocalyptic prophesy held by a small but vocal group of Christian leaders. During his appearance with Palin in June, he declared, "I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them."

He also claims to have received direct "words of knowledge" from God, providing him information about past events in other people's lives. During one sermon, he described being paired with a complete stranger during a golf outing. "I said, I'm a minister from Alaska and I want you to know that your wife left you -- you know that your wife left you and that the Lord is gonna defend you in a very short time, and it wasn't your fault. And the man drops his clubs, he literally was about to tee off and he dropped his clubs, and he says, 'Who the blank are you?' And I says, 'well, I'm a minister.' He says, 'how do you know about my life? What do you know?' And I started giving him more of the word of knowledge to his life and he was freaked out."

Kalnins has, of course, preached on a bevy of topics ranging from humility to "overcoming bitterness." But the more controversial remarks reported above were not out of the norm, appearing in numerous sermons spanning the four years of available recordings.

As for Palin, her views on these topics is more opaque. In the wake of the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, a debate has raged about whether political figures should be held responsible for the comments of their religious guiders. Clearly, however, Kalnins, like many national conservative religious leaders, sees Alaska's governor as one of his own. "Gov. Sarah Palin is the real deal," he told his church this past summer. "You know, some people put on a show...but she's the real deal."

Secessionist Sarah: VP pick Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party

It's bad horror and comedy tied into one... more so than what's typically expected.

More fun reading.

"The Palin family's potential big oil conflict of interest..."