Saturday, September 13, 2008

A Gidget for God's "Truth"

http://www.truthout.org/article/sarah-palin-a-gidget-gods-truth

SATURDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2008


Truthout Original

Sarah Palin: A Gidget for God's Truth
Tuesday 09 September 2008

by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective (reader comments follow)

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," declared John McCain back in September 2007. With his vice-presidential pick of Governor Sarah Palin, he has found a winsome soul mate who is even more of a Christian nationalist, eager to use government to impose her religious views on the rest of us.

Palin's stance on abortion illustrates her approach. As she proudly declares, she sees the Bible as literally true, which leads her to believe that aborting a fetus is murder. That position contradicts our long history of common and statutory law. She then goes on to conclude that government should severely punish anyone who has an abortion or performs one, even in the case of rape or incest. She also opposes stem cell research.

Also see:
Steve Weissman |
America's Religious Right: Saints or Subversives? •

McCain hears God less extremely, but the Republican platform echoes Palin, and if she ever became president, she would feel completely justified in making her religious belief a litmus test for appointees to the Supreme Court.

Her attitude toward gays and lesbians is similar, though observers in both the gay press and corporate media have misrepresented the firmness of her convictions. The confusion stems from a legal suit that some same-sex couples filed in 1999, arguing that Alaska had no right to deny domestic partners of state employees the same health and pension benefits that the state gave to married spouses. The case made its way to Alaska's Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that the state could not discriminate against the domestic partners.

In the political firestorm that followed, the Alaska legislature passed a bill forbidding state officials to pay the benefits. Alaska's attorney general then declared the bill unconstitutional, and the newly inaugurated Governor Palin felt legally obliged to veto it. But, she loudly proclaimed her opposition to spousal benefits for domestic partners and signed a separate bill calling for a state referendum, which she said would lay the groundwork for overturning the state Supreme Court ruling.

She also declared her long-time opposition to same-sex marriage, a position she had displayed as early as 1998 when she enthusiastically backed a constitutional amendment to ban the practice in Alaska.

"I believe that honoring the family structure is that important," she told the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. She was "not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay." But, she explained, her opposition grew out of her strong religious views.

Palin's religious convictions, and her willingness to use the power of government to force them on others, has won strong backing from far-right groups, such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and the Council for National Policy, the normally secretive network of right-wing preachers, political operatives, and fat cats who have been a major force in the Republican Party ever since they backed Ronald Reagan for president.

These overlapping groups view homosexual acts as "an abomination" and have led the fight against what Dr. Dobson calls "the radical Homosexual agenda." Focus on the Family will soon bring to Anchorage a conference on "curing homosexuality" through the power of prayer, an event that Palin's hometown church in Wasilla is actively promoting.

In the same vein, Palin has opposed extending hate crime laws to protect gays and lesbians, called for teaching creationism in public schools, and - as mayor of Wasilla - looked into banning books from the public library because they contained inappropriate language.

She described the building of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska as "God's will," which she would work to carry out as governor.

She supports the presence of US troops in Iraq as a "task that is from God."

And she has told colleagues that Christ will return within her lifetime, which raises questions about what sort of Armageddon she has in mind.

However absurd one finds all this, Palin's religious convictions should normally remain her own private concern. But her eagerness to use public office to enforce and implement what she believes makes her beliefs a matter of enormous public importance.

If you don't believe me, just listen to the enormous support Palin is receiving from Dr. Dobson, "End Time" author Tim La Haye, and others on the Christian right. Dobson once swore he would never vote for John McCain. He now calls McCain's choice of Palin "outstanding" and is promising his enthusiastic support.

Sarah Palin is their gal, and if she is elected vice president, these warriors of God could find themselves only a heartbeat away from their long-held goal of turning America into an ultra-rightwing Christian nation.
»

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France.


Comments
This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live.

This piece contains
Sat, 09/13/2008 - 10:44 — QueerAlaskan (not verified)
This piece contains inaccurate information on the issue of same-sex domestic partner benefits in Alaska. See the articles posted to http://www.bentalaska.com/search/label/Sarah%20Palin for more accurate information on this history and Palin's involvement in it.
Let's see: Thou shalt not
Sat, 09/13/2008 - 00:38 — Anonymous (not verified)
Let's see: Thou shalt not kill... fetuses. Thou shall kill Muslims... and anyone else who gets in my way.
""She supports the presence
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 22:01 — Verbatim (not verified)
""She supports the presence of US troops in Iraq as a "task that is from God." "" It is particularly useless to presume that we may act as instruments of God or that we are implementing His will. To dare presume is to try to justify not the higher calling but the inconceivable--and the misdeeds some of us would rather attribute to God. For it is mostly when we act out what we believe to be God’s wrath that we fool ourselves into believing that we are implementing his will. Only very seldom do we act out His justice, kindness and patience, to really implement His will.
I am sick to death of the
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 13:50 — C.J.Gelfand (not verified)
I am sick to death of the constant insertion of religion into politics and government, to the point where I will start tearing out my hair if I hear one more person start proselytizing! Our constitution gives us the right to practice, or not practice religion, whatever the case. Our country was never meant to have a state religion, and religion must remain a private matter if we are to be a nation at peace with ourselves. Why isn't it enough for all you religionists to practice what you believe without hitting all the rest of us on the head constantly to make us live your way? What are you so insecure about? Stop the paranoia--people of different beliefs are not out to get you. All religions and philosophies (except those based on hatred) are at our disposal to help us lead a good life. There is not only one way to go. And try thinking for yourselves for a change. I know of no other way to encourage rampant fascism than to let others do your thinking for you without asking your own questions.
Because this column is about
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:43 — elizabeth (not verified)
Because this column is about the reactionary religion of a key political candidate, I am sharing comments below providing an alternative perspective regarding that religion. It is not my usual practice, but in this case, it is on topic and appropriate. My comments also come full circle as they are applied to my observations of the candidate. We progressive Christians like to think that we are actually attempting to live according to the Gospels. For example, even if the framers hadn't made the separation of church and state clear, Jesus mostly certainly did. It's also crucial that we take back the word "evangelical" from the fundamentalists, literalists and millienials. Paul charged all Jesus-followers to be evangelical (from the Greek, same root as "heaven" and "angel"). It means we live by the Gospels and use our lives as examples to share the Good News. This is relevant because it is so misunderstood and misused, now by a major candidate for VP (and the media just absorbs it as if she were a theologian). It is not our job to aggressively convert or judge people, unlike the message of the fundamentalists who have hijacked this basic concept and twisted it every way to Sunday, as Sarah Palin does. We also live by the Gospels (and the New Testament), not by the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures are in the Christian bible for context, not for instruction, but fundamentalists mistakenly give the Hebrew scriptures more weight than our own. Jesus gave us all the instruction needed for Christians, love God and love your neighbor as yourself. That is not the message I hear repeated by Sarah Palin, nor does she live a life of example according to the Gospels (at least not in public). Publicly, she appears to be a true believer in the worst possible ways. And this concerns me at least as much if not more than the secular concerns I noted in my first post, which was edited by someone other than me, leaving out these concerns, and also leaving other progressive Christians wondering where the progressives were among those commenting. Elizabeth Rose, O.C.P.
I live in Wyoming and attend
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 03:25 — The sHiZ NiCk!!!! MaSTer MMM!!!!! (not verified)
I live in Wyoming and attend a private charter school. Can't tell you the name of the school or the names of the people (I promised my G.F. that I wouldn't). I remember my high school's history teacher last year, he asked my freshmen class this question: What's more important, the Bible or the U.S. Constitution? A few timidly raised their hands up for the Constitution, but the majority quickly raised up their hands in support of the Bible. The teacher asked why they voted that way. One said: "Because Jesus is supreme over anything written by men and that why the Bible is more important because its words comes from God." Another student said, "Because I learned that if it wasn't for the Constitution, you may not have the freedom to believe in the Bible." That student was beaten up after school was out. Some guys in the football team beat him up so bad he was put into the hospital, and he was in traction and partial body casts for 14 months. He transferred to another school. The history teacher that taught the course, he was fired, cut. Seems that a lot of religious parents complained to the local school board about what he was teaching. The science teacher for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th periods was fired too, a week later. I guess they didn't like him teaching the concept of evolution in biology, or geology, as to the age of the Earth. They said our school's better off, now that science, history and biology are now taught by these new Christian teachers that mince no words about convincing the class to vote Republican when they enter into their senior year. Now, almost all the students in our school go to school with a small Bible in our pockets. I don't carry a Bible in my back pocket. FIGHT THE POWER, FIGHT THE CORPORATE BEYOTCHES OF AMERICA, YEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Many Religious Right
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 02:57 — Anonymous; I live in a neighborhood full of Evangelists (not verified)
Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence. Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity. 1799, Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: "...the United States is in no way a Christian nation..." Unanimously by both chambers of Congress and signed by John Adams, the "father" of the Declaration of Independence. The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion. From the 1rst Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” [capital letters, mine] Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone. Note 1: The end of the Constitution records the year of its ratification, "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Although, indeed, it uses the word "Lord", it does not refer to Jesus but rather to the dating method. Incredibly, some Christians attempt to use this as justification for a Christian derived Constitution. The term simply conveys a written English form of the Latin, Anno Domini (AD), which means the year of our Lord (no, it does not mean After Death). This scripted form served as a common way of dating in the 1700s. The Constitution also uses many pagan words such as January (from the two-headed Roman god, Janus), and Sunday (from the word Sunne, which refers to the Saxon Sun god). Can you imagine the ludicrous position of someone trying to argue for the justification of a pagan god based Constitution? The same goes to any Christian who attempts to use a dating convention as an argument against the Constitution's secular nature, and can only paint himself as naive, or worse, as dishonest and deceiving. (For a satire on using calendar words to support pagan Gods, see The United States: A Country founded on paganism. http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan.htm
I must say it is refreshing
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 00:15 — Anonymous (not verified)
I must say it is refreshing to hear someone takes the bible literally these days. The bible having been scorned as a book giving testament only to the corruption of human nature. May Palin be president if for me to be given the pleasure of me knowing what someone like her could do behind the reins.
I am so tired of the
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 22:59 — Anonymous (not verified)
I am so tired of the hypocrisy. The Republican machine has questioned the patriotism of both Barack and Michelle Obama. They have gone so far as to accuse Michelle Obama's fist bump as a terrorist action! Then we are told that Palin's family is hands off! So do we just ignore the information that Sarah Palin's husband is affiliated with a secessionist group and she is supportive of his involvement? This is a man who wants the state of Alaska to secede from the US! The last time this occurred, we ended up engaging in a Civil War! Is this not treasonous behavior. This smells of militia mentality. My grandfather used to say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck!
Palin is indeed scary. She
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 22:53 — V. Selanik (not verified)
Palin is indeed scary. She is a glib know it all and that tells you right away she is not qualified. Compare Palin with Nancy Pelosi...another mother of five who waited until her children were mature before she went into politics. Her education is sketchy and shows her lack of connecting with the modern educated women of America.
Read Katha Pollit's
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 21:44 — altovuelo (not verified)
Read Katha Pollit's excellent column about Palin in the current issue of The Nation: "Lipstick on a Wing Nut": http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/pollitt
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 14:00 — Dana (not verified)
Palin is really Cheney with lipstick (not Bush)
To Mr. Anderson, I am so
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 04:55 — Anonymous (not verified)
To Mr. Anderson, I am so sick of the Christians' hypocrisy:I love how Christians interpret "Creator" to mean a Caucasian-looking deity floating in the heavens as opposed to "Nature." I love how Christians seem to embrace any reference to GOD as a reference to something "above" or "different" from "Nature." Perhaps that is what eases their minds when they vote for people whose policies destroy the very "Nature"that GOD (whatever he/she/it is to an individual) obviously intended for humans to live in balance with. And if you truly believe all people are "created equal," whether by Nature, or the floating white head you envision, you should believe that "he" would not condone prejudices against those who are "different" than how you perceive yourself to be. I'm sickened by the fact that most Christians I know vote for people that are obviously immoral because of rhetoric about abortion and gay rights. Do abortion and gay rights really weigh on your day-to-day life MORE than all the other injustices we impose as a nation on ourselves, our children and other nations. Wake up! -S
It is obvious that the GOP
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 02:58 — truth! not deceit or spin (not verified)
It is obvious that the GOP is DESPERATE at this point, and it is sickly comical to watch the republicans and christian extremists wave their flags so fervently that they have blinded themselves to the truth. Palin Scares me, and so does McCain. Neither are fit for the White House, McCain is a hothead selling just more of the same (and cannot stick to his own stories), and Palin... a mother of a newborn Down Syndrome child - shouldn't that be her first priority? And she also can't keep her facts straight! But then again we are at war, and the truth is always the first casualty in war. I just hope that Obama wins the election and that he isn't just a wolf in sheep's clothing and will make the changes so desperately needed in were not only this country is headed, but the entire world. wake up people across the land! Unplug FOX news and go out into your community and talk about what really matters, right here, right now. Register to VOTE! Follow your heart, not what corpmedia is spinning into your heads! (OK, I'm talking sugar in the candy shop... but still...)
John McCain is not only a
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 02:45 — Jeanot (not verified)
John McCain is not only a war hero, but is actually a "war lover." He has supported every military move by this nation, and looks first for a power or military response to every conflict that pops up. His instant reaction to the situation in Georgia ("We are all Georgians") shows he has no appreciation for the complexity of the situation. Where thoughtful analysis is called for we get quick gut reactions...helped along by close advisors were recently paid agents for one of the participants. We see in this case that it wasn't a simple matter of the Big Bad Bear running roughshod over its neighbor...all sorts of religious, ethnic, nationalistic divisions were in the mix. There usually are two or more sides to most issues, and unless our leaders can see this we are in for endless conflict. John McCain doesn't seem to get this.
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! I am
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 02:36 — Anonymous (not verified)
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! I am begging some of the posters here! STOP refering to right-wing evangelicals as "Christians", as if all Christians agree with them. I don't care what religioun you espouse, or if you're an atheist. That's your business, but when you refer to the evangelical right-wing as "Christians", some honest Christians get offended and actually think your attacking them. Liberalism IS NOT LESS CHRISTIAN. It is just MORE HONESTLY Christian. Please don't give these sleazebags more fuel to add to their burning cross. The ONLY thing they believe in is the sanctity of Holy Oil Industry.
I am convinced that she
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 02:21 — Anonymous (not verified)
I am convinced that she TRIED TO CAUSE A MISCARRIAGE with her latest baby. Why else did she go out of her way to avoid medical treatment and schedule a trip to Dallas while she was leaking amniotic fluid and was obviously going into labor a month early?
Palin is Bush with lipstick.
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 01:31 — Anonymous (not verified)
Palin is Bush with lipstick.
Along with books being
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 21:42 — Anonymous (not verified)
Along with books being banished, women's right set back 2000 years, faux-Christianity forced down our gullets, gay rights abolished, education bankrupted, all intellectuals, artists and dissenters best beware. They are next to be eliminated. We've seen it all before. Remember?
1799, Treaty of Tripoli,
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 20:08 — bob sauerbrey (not verified)
1799, Treaty of Tripoli, acticle 11: "...the United States is in no way a Christian nation..." Unanimously by both chambers of Congress and signed by John Adams, the "father" of the Declaration of Independence. McCain, Palin, and their supports may know their bible, but they a certainly ignorant of history.
Saint Francis of Assisi,
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 18:24 — Fulvia (not verified)
Saint Francis of Assisi, Italy, the Saint who was talking to the the wolf, and teach love to all creature, to the sun to the star to the moon, because all were beautiful and all of them creation of God. I really don't see any link with the appalling misbelieve of Palin and the true Christianity.
Good piece and some
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 17:18 — elizabeth (not verified)
Good piece and some excellent comments. So glad to see the prescient Margaret Atwood novel "The Handmaid's Tale" mentioned. That book has haunted me since 2002 because it was clear even then that we are on the same path. (I read it when it came out in the 80s and saw the excellent film adaptation when it came out in the early 90s.) I would change only one thing. Somehow, growing up in Alaska made Sarah Palin talk not like Gidget, but like a Valley Girl. A Valley Girl spewing invective and inhuman filth. Maybe the campaign is hoping that we'll be like dogs, responding more to the tone of voice than to what is said. And it is sad but true that there are voters who would vote for an ignorant Valley Girl. (Ironically, REAL Valley Girls grew up and many of them have gone on to fine lives and careers.) I've followed Sarah Palin for years, ever since I saw "the moose hunter" hunting wolves from a helicopter. I come from a long line of hunters, and that is NOT hunting. It's vicious and lacks any sense of sport or fair play. That told me everything I needed to know about Sarah Palin, although having her on my radar, I've learned a lot since, enough to almost faint when McCain announced her for the ticket, because I have not found one politically redeeming quality about this woman. And I'm a woman who would really like a woman president. But she has to be the best possible candidate, because if we have a woman in the WH who is as stupid and ignorant as the current crop, it will set women's rights back decades.
has anyone thought this
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 14:16 — Anonymous (not verified)
has anyone thought this woman could be the anti christ?
ditto!! Stop
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 14:02 — Anonymous (not verified)
ditto!! Stop whining! Let's use this time well, to be the best, and win this election. Lets get active, now. Nothing could be more important. What else? What else can we do?
Our Declaration of
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:40 — Anonymous (not verified)
Our Declaration of Independence does not come from Christian origins. Most of the founding Fathers were Freemasons,and Huminists, or claimed no religious belief at all. If you want to argue this passage "The laws of Nature and Natures God" is clear they are talking about "mother nature" or science "natures God" It's PAGAN all over!!
hey sarah? the bible is what
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:08 — Anonymous (not verified)
hey sarah? the bible is what you follow?so i would guess Psalm 137 would be the policy for iraq and such?after all we are doing gods work there arnt we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_137
Christian Republican males
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 10:24 — Jesus wept (not verified)
Christian Republican males will vote for McCain because, among other things, they think on some semiconscious or unconscious level that it will improve their chances of getting into the panties of women that look and think like Palin. So what if McCain's policies, combined with Palin's relgious extremism turns this country into a fascist, militant theocracy that goes bankrupt. These chickenhawks voted for the tits and boobs, and Jesus, and Bush-Mccain's machismo war machines that make them obscenely rich... so what do they care what would Jesus do if he was here again, because they believe that Jesus will forgive them of all their selfishness, greed and arrogance; as a result, they believe that when the time comes and they've ruined the Earth, they can take their wealth and power with them to heaven after they become immortal by the way of the Rapture. So in that way, the unchristian neocons that claim they are Christians, can have their cake and eat it, too... at the expense of our rights, drained us of all of our money and our very lives of course, but what do they care? Thanks to Bush in power, they got theirs.
We fought a Civil War and
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 10:21 — Anonymous (not verified)
We fought a Civil War and killed 1,000,000 of our fellow citizens a hundred and fifty years ago, in what was at base a conflict within the culture of this country. We didn't learn the lesson then, and we probably won't learn it this time, only this time there will be no use to learning it, cos there won't be anything to put back together again. The Lincoln of our time - Barack Obama - is villified for appealing to the better angels of our nature. I remember when America had ideals and hope and faith, and I have watched these past 60 years as they have all turned to dust and facsimile.
"Thou shalt not take the
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 10:00 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain." A pipeline? "God's will"?!? Why are the fundamentalist Christians not coming out of the woodwork to burn this blasphemous bitch at the stake, politically speaking?
What can all of us do at
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 05:25 — Joan (not verified)
What can all of us do at this stage of the game? Palin Palin is on the scene, alive and well. Now let's get out the vote and challenge the Republicans.Lets go to swing states and talk to people. Get on the phone lines. Make sure all our friends are registered and voting. Make sure the election is not stolen. Support, speak, protest, flood the media when they lie and let the candidates lie. Let's use this time well, to be the best, and win this election. Lets get active, now. Nothing could be more important. What else? What else can we do?
I am so damned sick of all
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 04:09 — Anonymous (not verified)
I am so damned sick of all the religious crap in our politics I could puke! This is what happens people when you don't get involved! The religious right has been working this path for decades! Wake up or you'll get what you deserve with Bush II and the sociopath.
she's beautiful no
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 03:30 — Anonymous (not verified)
she's beautiful no doubt! he loves it! but maybe he chose her because the both have the letter 'in' in their name. how sane!
to j. andersen,(see
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 03:24 — kl (not verified)
to j. andersen,(see above) unalienable rights are human rights. this republican party supports taking unalienable human rights and listing them under crimes and criminal behaviors. back to the drawing board. thanks for the history lesson. pro-life and pro-choice.
Choice is the whole point,
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 01:48 — kcjones (not verified)
Choice is the whole point, M. If America "chooses" the progressive/liberal way for her to go, over the traditional values/conservative way, either way the other half will be screaming they don't want to be forced to do what their opponents have chosen democratically! I don't want to see young children "forced" to be indoctrinated in public schools about the normalicy of homosexuality when I believe with all my heart they've been emotionally twisted somehow, somewhere in their lives, even if they are wonderful, productive, loving people in every other aspect. I don't believe abortion is about "choice" when the fetus is a viable, separate human being who just so happens to be inside their mother's womb. (abortion scripture, btw: Proverb 6:17....which should also convict some Republican warmongers) In fact, if you want something to talk to Christians about, try scripture. Try Proverbs 6:16-19 and apply them to President Bush, for example...And for all you people who think we actually evolved from nothing (ie: spontaneously generated), try watching Michael Behe's movie "Unfolding the Mysteries of Life". I challenge anyone to watch that and deny intelligent design. Or, "The Privileged Planet". Same deal. I'm not red or blue. I'm purple. Both platforms have awesome and horrible attributes. But "Hypocracy Now" (spelled that way on purpose) was the mantra for the last elections. PRO-WAR!! PRO-LIFE!! vs FREE LUV!! PRO-CHOICE!! Let's have some intelligent input on how we can actually live democratically. You know, extremists on both sides actually pull people to the middle, which is good. And for the record, I believe God's will will be done whoever is elected President, and that's what gives me peace. Jesus was no dullard. There are powers that be way beyond most of our understanding.
It is extremely embarrassing
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 01:10 — The embarrassed pastor (not verified)
It is extremely embarrassing and difficult to be a liberal Christian minister in this day and age. There are so many Christians (like those everyone is writing about) who have bastardized the religion and made it into something it is not. I wish people would understand that Jesus was an iconoclast, speaking out against the hypocrites of his day. If we would really pay attention to what he was saying and if we endeavored to follow his suggestions for living a good life, we would understand that what the Christian right and fundamentalists are expounding are man made rules that have nothing to do with Jesus' message. I asked my husband the other day where he would like to move to if the Republicans win. So far, Canada is the favorite. I don't know if they'll take us, but we can try. Pray for the highest good for our country.
As a Canadian, all I can say
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 00:04 — Peg Young (not verified)
As a Canadian, all I can say is, "God (assuming It exists) help America."
The ball is in Joe Biden's
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 00:00 — Carole Auger-Richard (not verified)
The ball is in Joe Biden's camp. Here's an exceptional occasion to kill the Palin myth! Go Joe go!
Sarah Palin is scary . Very
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 23:39 — Anonymous (not verified)
Sarah Palin is scary. Very scary indeed. She as well as John McSame are obviously just puppets of the right wing good 'ol boys that want to stay in power and turn back the clock . Where will it end, in armageddon? I can't believe a person with such an old brain who believes the word of the bible is true) could potentially be the comander in chief. If they steal the election for a third time, it will be time to get the hell out. God bless us all.
These are not Christians,
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 23:22 — Anonymous (not verified)
These are not Christians, but ANTI-Christians. Very very insightful, since in Greek anti can mean "instead of" or a replacement-counterfeit (cf: Liddell and Scott's unabridged Lexicon of Classical Greek). These wingnut Christians are indeed anti-Christians in every sense of the Greek word. Ironically, they may represent the very Anti-Christ they claim is presented in the Apocalypsis of St. John. Just a thought, but how wonderfully ironic.
Any one who says the United
The big dichotomy... I
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 22:47 — mapsguy1955 (not verified)
The big dichotomy... I don't get how the party of the neocons gets the votes of the Christian right. Were those all Christians at the ENRON parties? Didn't jesus say something about turning the other cheek? The Republican mantra is not "Drill Baby Drill", but "The world is REALLY scary, you should be terrified of anyone who doesn't think like us, it might make you GAY or you might be forced to have an ABORTION". The right couldn't possible be more wrong.
I think the diversity of
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 22:32 — Mike (not verified)
I think the diversity of religions is yet another positive dynamic at this unique time. Catholicism, United Church of Christ, Latterday Saints, United Methodist, Baptist, and Assembly of God. I think that if Tim Russert was still with us he would say, "What a country!"
Have the republicans noticed
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 22:28 — Anonymous (not verified)
Have the republicans noticed that they have completely lost control of their party? The sponsorship of McCain and Palin for America's highest office is an irresponsible, possibly criminal act, for which this country will pay dearly if they are elected. Listen to Obama please: America is better than this. Note to McCain: Constantly blowing your own horn about your POW experience does not convince anyone that you are better qualified. Lying about your opponent makes you look dishonorable. What a shame. Picking Sarah Palin makes you look like an idiot and a pawn, not a statesman. Sorry, old man.
So, dean men and women of
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 21:47 — granny (not verified)
So, dean men and women of the "professional" media, when are you going to visit her church, record the rolling and dancing and tongues-talking and armeggadon-expecting, and put it out there for all to see? If you would attack Barack Obama through attacks on his paastor, the same treatment should be accorded to Palin and her pastor. And has anyone vetted McCain's pastor, if he goes to chruch for other than press-op moments?
Christ taught us to love
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 21:22 — Anonymous (not verified)
Christ taught us to love God; to love your neighbor as yourself and to love your enemy. The"new and everlasting covenant" is about promoting the common good, not the chosen few of the old covenant. These people are not Christians-they're Anti-Christians
I'd like Palin to tell us
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 20:57 — M (not verified)
I'd like Palin to tell us what verse of her precious Bilble forbids abortion. Oh, KCJONES. There is a qualitative difference between gays (why you mention them as a voting bloc is mind boggling) and liberals. It's the democratic concept of "choice" which Republicans don't believe in. We won't MAKE you live a life you don't want. You, however, will force everyone to live the life YOU decide for us. That's just a tiny difference, don't you think? It's called Democracy. Ever hear of it?
You can't believe the Bible
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 20:43 — Anonymous (not verified)
You can't believe the Bible is literally true and believe that aborting a fetus is murder. Genesis 2:7 says that Adam wasn't a living soul until God gave him the breath of life. Exodus 21:22 says that if two men are fighting and cause a woman to abort her child, they must pay the father for the loss of his property, the fetus. Ecclesiastes 6:3 says that unless a man has a good life and a proper burial it is better that he be stillborn. People who say they believe the Bible is literally true should read it some time, Especially those scriptures where God commands the Israelites to commit genocide, killing men, women, children and that would include pregnant women and their fetuses. I don't believe God commits murder or commands others to do so.
I think calling Sarah Palin
Tue, 09/09/2008 - 20:42 — Oakjoan (not verified)
I think calling Sarah Palin "Gidget" is a VERRRY big mistake. Gidget was a cute, bouncy, sweet thing. There is NOTHING sweet about Palin. I can easily picture her using a German accent and saying "Vee vill conquer Poland!" A person who holds such ugly and wrong-headed beliefs is anything but cute. She is out to force her beliefs on all of us. This is doubly dangerous since she has proved during her political career that she has few moral scruples. I'm not afraid of her Armageddon and other fundamentalist beliefs, I am terrified of her history of unscrupulous and self-serving behavior in politics (getting back at enemies by having them fired, attempting to bring Fahrenheit 451 to the local library, changing her stance on issues when it became politically expedient). Of course this is not exactly far from the usual politicians' changeable stances, but they usually at least have the smarts to realize they'll be found out eventually. Most of them are not the subjects of governmental investigation as Palin is now. End of rant.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Zombie feminists of the RNC

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/11/zombie_feminism/index.html

Zombie feminists of the RNC

How did Sarah Palin become a symbol of women's empowerment? And how did I, a die-hard feminist, end up terrified at the idea of a woman in the White House?

By Rebecca Traister

Sep. 11, 2008 | I have been dreaming about Sarah Palin. (Apparently, I'm not alone.) I wish I could say that I'd been conjuring witty, politically sophisticated nightmares in which she leads troops into Vancouver or kindergartners in the recitation of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." But, alas, mine have been nonsensical, kiddie-style doozies in which she kidnaps my cats, or enjoys a meal with my girlfriends while I bang on the restaurant window. There's also a chilling one, in which a scary witch stands on a wind-swept hill and leers at me.

What troubles me most -- aside from the fact that there is suddenly a Republican candidate potent enough to so ensnare my psyche -- is my sense that these are dreams in which it matters very much that Palin is a woman.

I have been writing about feminism for more than five years; I have been covering the gender politics of the 2008 presidential election for more than two. And I am absolutely gobsmacked by the intensity of my feelings about Sarah Palin. I am stunned not only by the way in which her candidacy has changed the rules in the gender debate, or how it is twisting and garbling the fight for women's progress. But I'm also startled by how Palin herself is testing my own beliefs about how I react to women in power.

My feelings about Palin have everything to do with her gender -- a factor that I have always believed, as a matter of course, should neither amplify nor diminish impressions of a person's goodness or badness, smartness or dumbness, gravitas or inconsequence. Why are my rules changing?

I am still perfectly capable of picking out the sexism being leveled against the Alaska governor by the press, her detractors and her own party. Every time someone doubts Palin's ability to lead and mother simultaneously, or considers her physical appeal as a professional attribute, or calls her a "maverette," I bristle.

But that's the easy stuff. The clear-cut stuff. I'm far more torn about the more subtle, complicated ways in which Palin's gender has me tied in knots.

Perhaps it's because the ground has shifted so quickly under my feet, leaving me with only a slippery grasp of what the basic vocabulary of my beat -- feminism, women's rights -- even means anymore. Some days, it feels like I'm watching the civics filmstrip about how much progress women made on the presidential stage in 2008 burst into flames, acutely aware that in the back of the room, a substitute teacher is threading a new reel into the projector. It has the same message and some of the same signifiers -- Glass ceilings broken! Girl Power! -- but its meaning has been distorted. Suddenly it's Rudy Giuliani and Rick Santorum schooling us about pervasive sexism; Hillary Clinton's 18 million cracks have weakened not only the White House's glass ceiling, but the wall protecting Roe v. Wade; the potential first female vice president in America's 200-year history describes her early career as "your average hockey mom" who "never really set out to be involved in public affairs"; and teen pregnancy is no longer an illustrative example for sex educators and contraception distributors but for those who seek to eliminate sex education and contraception.

In this strange new pro-woman tableau, feminism -- a word that is being used all over the country with regard to Palin's potential power -- means voting for someone who would limit reproductive control, access to healthcare and funding for places like Covenant House Alaska, an organization that helps unwed teen mothers. It means cheering someone who allowed women to be charged for their rape kits while she was mayor of Wasilla, who supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, who has inquired locally about the possibility of using her position to ban children's books from the public library, who does not support the teaching of sex education.

In this "Handmaid's Tale"-inflected universe, in which femininity is worshipped but females will be denied rights, CNBC pundit Donny Deutsch tells us that we're witnessing "a new creation ... of the feminist ideal," the feminism being so ideal because instead of being voiced by hairy old bats with unattractive ideas about intellect and economy and politics and power, it's now embodied by a woman who, according to Deutsch, does what Hillary Clinton did not: "put a skirt on." "I want her watching my kids," says Deutsch. "I want her laying next to me in bed."

Welcome to 2008, the year a tough, wonky woman won a primary (lots of them, actually), an inspiring black man secured his party's nomination for the presidency, and a television talking head felt free to opine that a woman is qualified for executive office because he wants to bed her and have her watch his kids! Stop the election; I want to get off.

What Palin so seductively represents, not only to Donny Deutsch but to the general populace, is a form of feminine power that is utterly digestible to those who have no intellectual or political use for actual women. It's like some dystopian future ... feminism without any feminists.

Palin's femininity is one that is recognizable to most women: She's the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much. The kind of woman who, as Jessica Grose at Jezebel has eloquently noted, achieves her power by doing everything modern women believed they did not have to do: presenting herself as maternal and sexual, sucking up to men, evincing an absolute lack of native ambition, instead emphasizing her luck as the recipient of strong male support and approval. It works because these stances do not upset antiquated gender norms. So when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations but who falls short of the goal, Palin is there, tapped as a supposedly perfect substitute by powerful men who appreciate her charms.

But while the Republicans would have us believe that Palin can simply stand in for Hillary Clinton, there is nothing interchangeable about these politicians. We began this history-making election with one kind of woman and have ended up being asked to accept her polar opposite. Clinton's brand of femininity is the kind that remains slightly unpalatable in America. It is based on competence, political confidence and an assumption of authority that upends comfortable roles for men and women. It's a kind of power that has nothing to do with the flirtatious or the girly, nothing to do with the traditionally feminine. It is authority that is threatening because it so closely and calmly resembles the kind of power that the rest of the guys on a presidential stage never question their right to wield.

The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin's nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin's candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.

Perhaps that's why my reaction to Palin is so bone-deep, and why she is shaking some of my convictions about how to approach gender. When, last Sunday, I picked up the New York Post, with its front-page headline "Ladykiller: Hillary to Check Hockey Mom" next to photos of Palin in porno librarian mode and Clinton with her teeth bared, I didn't roll my eyes in disgust at the imagined cage match. Instead, I envisioned it. And I enjoyed it. I was overcome by the desire to see Clinton take on Palin, not only checking her but fouling her, smushing her, absolutely crushing her. Get her, Hillary! Don't let her channel all the energy generated by you and your Democratic supporters into anti-woman, pro-God government! You are the only one who can stop her.

It's true that the last time I had this kind of visceral yearning for a politician to save the day was on the evening of Sept. 11, when the only person whose face I wanted to see on my television was Bill Clinton's. Perhaps when the Clintons took office in my 18th year, they became imprinted on my brain as my presidential parent-figures, my ur-protectors. But it's hard not to notice that if that's the case, it's Bill I want to nurture and soothe me, and Hillary I want to show up, guns blazing Ripley-style, to surprise the mother alien just as she is about to feast on independent voters, protectively shouting, "Get away from them, you bitch!"

There I go again with the hyper-feminized anxieties. I think it's mostly that I want Hillary Clinton -- the imperfect history maker whose major selling points for "First Woman..." status, in retrospect, included the fact that she was not a Republican, not pro-life, did not believe in teaching creationism alongside evolution, had never inquired about the feasibility of banning books, understood the American economy, supported universal healthcare and did not kill wolves from planes -- to make Sarah Palin go away and stop threatening to make history I don't want to see made.

It is infuriating that Clinton, her supporters and, yes, also those Obama supporters who voiced their displeasure at the sexist treatment Clinton sometimes received, and also female voters, and also females full stop, are being implicated in feminism's bastardization.

But if we inadvertently paved the way for this, then the Democratic Party mixed the concrete, painted lanes on the road, put up streetlights and called it an interstate. The role of the left in this travesty is almost too painful to contemplate just yet.

For while it may chafe to hear Rudy Giuliani and John McCain hold forth on the injustice of gender bias, what really burns is that we never heard a peep or squawk or gurgle of this nature from anyone in the Democratic Party during the entire 100 years Hillary Clinton was running for president, while she was being talked about as a pantsuited, wrinkly old crone and a harpy ex-wife and a sexless fat-thighed monster and an emasculating nag out for Tucker Carlson's balls. Only after she was good and gone did Howard Dean come out of his cave to squeak about the amount of sexist media bias Clinton faced. That may not be pretty to recall, especially in light of the Grand Old Party's Grand Old Celebration of Estrogen. But it's true. And it's also true that if there hadn't been so much stone-cold silence, so much shoulder-shrugging "What, me sexist?" inertia from the left, if there had been a little more respect (there was plenty of attention, of the derisive and annoyed sort) paid to the unsubtle clues being transmitted by 18 million voters that maybe they were interested in this whole woman-in-the-White-House thing, then the right would not have had the fuel to power this particular weapon.

Which leads us to my greatest nightmare: that because my own party has not cared enough, or was too scared, to lay its rightful claim to the language of women's rights, that Sarah Palin will reach historic heights of power, under the most egregious of auspices, by plying feminine wiles, and conforming to every outdated notion of what it means to be a woman. That she will hit her marks by clambering over the backs, the bodies, the rights of the women on whose behalf she claims to be working, and that she will do it all under the banner of feminism. How can anybody sleep?


-- By Rebecca Traister




Salon About Salon Contact & Help Corrections Advertise in Salon Salon Personals Salon Jobs Salon Mobile Salon Newsletter RSS Feeds
Salon Premium: Premium log in What is Salon Premium?
A & E Books Comics Community: Table Talk & The WELL Life News & Politics Opinion Sports Tech & Business Letters
Investor Relations Privacy Policy Terms of Service
Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. SALON® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Pulling the Curtain on Palin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090801907.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008; Page A23

"'Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, gave the game away when he said on "Fox News Sunday" that she would not meet with reporters until they showed a willingness to treat her "with some level of respect and deference.'

Deference? That's a word used in monarchies or aristocracies. Democracies don't give "deference" to politicians. When have McCain, Obama, Biden or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton asked for deference? "

* *

John McCain's campaign acknowledged this weekend that Sarah Palin is unprepared to be vice president or president of the United States.

Of course, McCain's people said no such thing. But their actions told you all you needed to know.

McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all subjected themselves to tough questioning on the regular Sunday news programs. Palin was the only no-show. And it's not just the Sunday interviews. She has not opened herself to any serious questioning since McCain picked her to be next in line for the presidency.

McCain's advisers clearly don't trust Palin to answer questions about policy and don't want her to answer many of the questions that have been raised about her tenure as governor of Alaska.

Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, gave the game away when he said on "Fox News Sunday" that she would not meet with reporters until they showed a willingness to treat her "with some level of respect and deference."

Deference? That's a word used in monarchies or aristocracies. Democracies don't give "deference" to politicians. When have McCain, Obama, Biden or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton asked for deference?

A few hours later came the announcement that Palin would grant an interview to ABC News's Charlie Gibson. Recall that Gibson was the co-host of an ABC News debate last April during which Obama faced a relentless pounding. Here's hoping that a sense of fairness will lead Gibson to be comparably tough on Palin this week. If he treats her more deferentially than he did Obama, we will know that McCain's war on the media is working.

From the moment Palin was picked, reporters immediately began to ask questions, a lot of them. Because she was so little known outside Alaska, her views on many issues, particularly foreign policy, are a mystery. Voters also need to know how McCain went about reaching what will probably be the most important decision he makes during this campaign.

A week ago, Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times cited McCain sources questioning "how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket." She reported that Palin had been selected "with more haste than McCain advisers initially described." (She also mistakenly reported that Palin belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party. It was her husband, Todd, who had been a member.)

McCain's people trashed Bumiller, saying she had opted to "make up her own version of events." Steve Schmidt, McCain's chief strategist, said the Times had written "an absolute work of fiction" about the vetting process while Karl Rove told his Fox News viewers that the Times "got it wrong."

It turned out that the McCain side misled journalists. Bumiller was right about the vetting. The lesson is that McCain's counselors are not interested in fair treatment, and they are certainly not interested in the truth.

If the media cave to McCain's pressure, it will be the third time this decade that conservative attacks led reporters to tilt to the right.

During the 2000 battle over Florida, Al Gore's perfectly defensible efforts to win a hand recount ran into a buzz saw of criticism from nonpartisan commentators, many of whom urged Gore to withdraw "gracefully." In the buildup to the Iraq war, the Bush administration and its supporters savaged the patriotism of many who raised questions about its strategy and its plans. Now, McCain hopes Palin will skate through the next two months without any real scrutiny or questioning.

It is hugely unfortunate that the first big story about Palin -- other than questions raised about whether she fired the head of the Alaska state police for refusing to dismiss her former brother-in-law -- concerned her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. It's not just that Bristol Palin should be left alone, but also that the intense interest in this story gave McCain's bullies an excuse to push aside legitimate questions about Palin's record and knowledge.

Of course, Palin's handlers are being hypocritical: They want to focus on her family life and her identity as a hockey mom when doing so helps them and to push aside any story that mars this perfect picture. Conservatives are always against identity politics until they are for it.

Nonetheless, what matters is not Palin's personal life but whether she is prepared to assume the presidency if called upon. The actions of McCain's lieutenants suggest that they know the answer. And they are doing everything they can to keep the media from finding it.

postchat@aol.com

Obama: McCain/Palin "Not Telling the Truth"

http://www.truthout.org/article/obama-mccainpalin-not-telling-truth


Monday 08 September 2008

»
by: Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown


Keith Olbermann interviews Senator Barack Obama on MSNBC's "Countdown," where they addressed "stretching the bounds of spin" by McCain and Palin. (Photo: Newsday)
Part One: Keith Olbermann's interview with Barack Obama.

Interview Transcript

Keith Olbermann: Senator, thanks for your time. I'm sorry I couldn't join you in person, but I had to update people on quarterback injuries or something like that.

Video of Barack Obama's responses at original link above.

(Laughter)
Senator Barack Obama: Thanks, Keith.

Keith Olbermann: This is...

Senator Barack Obama: Lousy day for quarterbacks.

Keith Olbermann: Yes, it is. Brady is out. This is more about campaign tactics to start with rather than issues. But it seems sometimes like tactics have replaced issues altogether. "He fights pork barrel spending," said this new McCain/Palin ad, "she stopped the 'Bridge to Nowhere.'"


I mean, it sounds a little like "Remington Steele," but I'm confused otherwise. As late as October of 2006, Mrs. Palin insisted to voters in Alaska that not only would she defend that infamous bridge, but she also said - and here's the quote - "She would not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." What are Senator McCain and Governor Palin doing in this new commercial, do you think?

Senator Barack Obama: They're not telling the truth. You know, I mean, it's - I think we've all gotten accustomed to being able to spin things in politics. But when you've got somebody who was for a project being presented as being against it, then that, you know, stretches the bounds of spin into new areas.

And you know, as far as John McCain is concerned, you know, I think that Senator McCain has, on occasion, broken with his party, but this notion that, as he said at his convention, that he would tell the lobbyists that they're not going to be running Washington anymore, who is he going to tell, his campaign chairman, Charlie Black, his campaign manager, Rick Davis, two of the largest corporate lobbyists in Washington with client lists that extend into every major industry?

You know, there is just a sense that they're making these assertions that ignore the facts of their campaigns and their past history. And I think people should be troubled by that.

Keith Olbermann: And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is - in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party.

You said that they're not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it's about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word "lie" about these things?

Senator Barack Obama: Well, look, we have been very clear about the fact that this argument John McCain and Sarah Palin are making, that they are agents of change, just won't fly. It defies their history and their background.
And we saw it in the convention that they wouldn't talk about the basic issues that are really going to make a difference in the lives of middle class families.

So you know, I'm happy to have legitimate policy debates with them on where we want to take health care, what we want to do about energy, what we want to do about education, what are we going to do about the war in Iraq.

But you know, for them to run an ad that basically doesn't present an accurate record of their positions on issues I think should raise some questions about how they would approach an administration.

Keith Olbermann: To something from your own convention, maybe the most compelling moment of your acceptance speech in Denver was that one strongly voiced word, "enough." A lot of people who have felt angry about what has been done to this country in the last seven or eight years have that same sense of urgency and simplicity to it.

Have you thought of using on the campaign trail and in your speaking engagements, more exclamation points? Have you thought of getting angrier?



Senator Barack Obama: Well, I'll tell you what, with two months to go, I think everybody needs to feel a sense of urgency. You know, when I hear John McCain suggest that he is going to bring about change, I am reminded of the cartoon that Tom Toles did in "The Washington Post" where he has McCain say: "Watch out, George Bush, with the exception of the economy, tax policy, foreign policy, health care policy, education policy, and Karl Rove politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington."

You know, the fact of the matter is, is that not only has John McCain agreed with George Bush 90 percent of the time, this is the party that has been in charge for eight years. And they're now trying to run against themselves despite a few months ago having argued that - John McCain saying that, listen, I've been supportive of George Bush, boasting about it.

You know, I said, I think on Saturday in Indiana, the American people aren't stupid. They are going to get it. But we've got to make sure that we are being clear, not only that they will not bring about change, but the very specific kinds of changes we want to bring, in terms of green technology jobs in America, investing in our education system, making college more affordable, making health care accessible to every American, that contrast, if we go into November, with that contrast on the minds of the American people, I think we're going to do well.

Keith Olbermann: But clearly it must not be fully on their minds because the race is as close as it is. And nobody's burst into laughter at the latest Republican ad, at least not many Republicans have.

Have the Republicans succeeded in muddying up this election in kind of overcomplicating it so the point is not as simple as you just made it.

Sixty years ago Harry Truman went out and campaigned very simply, looked out at people in trouble because of a Republican Congress at that point and the impact it had on their lives and he said, "How many more times do you have to be hit over the head till you figure out who's hitting you?"

I mean, has your campaign in some way not kept it that simple?

Senator Barack Obama: You know, we've actually been driving this point home and I think the convention drove it home. But look, the Republicans can't govern but they run smart campaigns and frankly, they are not always policed by the media as effectively as they should be.

I was struck with how little scrutiny some of the claims that John McCain and Sarah Palin were making, how little they were subjected to scrutiny coming out of the convention. It's our job to press the point and make the case and I think that the Republicans have been pretty successful at working the refs during this game.

But yeah, I have confidence in the American people that if we just drum home the fact that the country is off course, that middle class families are struggling, your wages and incomes have gone down under George Bush. Under Democrats, they went up. Unemployment has gone up. Unemployment was down under Bill Clinton.

If we just keep on being clear about how we are going to rebuild this economy, then I think we are going to end up winning this campaign.

Keith Olbermann: And there are extraordinarily large developments in terms of that economy. Especially in the last couple of days, especially about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were created as a kind of gentle encouragement by government to more home ownership, to make it more possible.

There is nothing gentle about it, it is now fully taxpayer funded subsidization of home interest rates and home ownership. Should this be the way it is? Is this a permanent solution or did we just add $5 trillion to the national debt? What do we do now about this?

Senator Barack Obama: Well, I don't think it's going to be $5 trillion. That's the amount of debt that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are holding. But a lot of those are good mortgages. People are paying them. We are going to see some losses. Taxpayers are going to take a hit. How big it is, we don't yet know.

And I have to be fair on this one. Republicans and Democrats I think in Congress did not pay enough attention to the structural problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which was, they are quasi public, quasi private institutions. They are making big profits and their CEOs are taking in big bonuses when times are good. But there is this implicit federal guarantee when times are bad.

And that was a structural problem that needs to be fixed.

But the problem of not regulating the financial markets effectively generally, not seeing that the subprime mortgage crisis was leading to a mess, not updating some of our financial regulations since the 1930s, that's been, I think, an example of the neglect on the part of the Bush administration over the last eight years whose view is basically anything goes and the government just has to stay out of the way. That has ironically hurt the market and one of the things we have got to rediscover is a little bit of well-applied regulation and transparency and accountability actually helps the market, helps the economy grow.

And that's what I want to restore when I'm president.

Keith Olbermann: You pointed out last week how little time at their convention Republicans spent talking about the economy. I think the time might have been zero, zero, zero. I'm not sure. We weren't running a clock. But if the election does, in fact, hinge on the economy, on how Americans are doing, has there been thought given to breaking this down to its simplest element, in much the way one of the Republican icons, Mr. Reagan did during the 1980 campaign, and ask the voters if today, are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

Senator Barack Obama: Oh, absolutely. And I often do that on the campaign trail.

And we're going to just keep on repeating that.

I mean, this is - this should not be complicated. Here's what it comes down to. Under George Bush's stewardship, with an assist from John McCain and the rest of the Republican Party, the economy is weaker now than it has been in a very long time. Unemployment is higher.

Poverty is higher. More people are uninsured. Wages and incomes have flat-lined. Middle-class folks who used to feel secure now feel unstable. We've got more homes being lost to foreclosure than at any time since the Great Depression.

And John McCain does not have any discernible difference from George Bush when it comes to economic policy. He's got the same economic policy. So if you like what has happened under George Bush's presidency, you should vote for John McCain. If you think that we have to move this country in a fundamentally different direction, then you should vote for me. And that is going to be the case that we make throughout this election, and frankly, that's not the conversation that the McCain campaign wants to have.

Rick Davis was very explicit. John McCain's campaign manager said this campaign is not going to be about the issues. That was his assertion. Well, I think that the American people expect it to be about the issues. They deserve it to be about the issues. That's what we're going to keep on pressing in the weeks that will remain.

Keith Olbermann: In terms of getting that and other messages out, Rachel Maddow wanted me to ask this question, so I'm doing this on her behalf, because her new show is starting tonight. Given - given the tone that the campaign has taken, I mean, this Georgia congressman last week, Mr. Westmoreland, who called you and your wife, quote, "uppity." In that context, do you regret putting the brakes on the 527 groups who would have produced or could have produced hard-hitting ads that would have been sharing your sympathies?

Senator Barack Obama: You know, I'll tell you what, Keith, I am confident that the American people, once the dust has settled, are going to say to themselves, "Do we really want to do the same thing we've been doing for the last eight years? Or do we want something new?" I think there's a genuine sense of anxiety out there, not just about immediate economic prospects but the sense that we are not living up to what's possible in America, that we're not delivering on the American promise.

And I think that understandably people are saying to themselves, gosh, we like Obama, we like his message, but we haven't known him that long, let's really lift the hood, kick the tires, you know, take them out and watch them work hard.

And you know, let's take a look at these debates and then we're going to make up our mind in mid-October. And I think that by the time this thing is all over, the contrast is going to be clear and I believe the American people are going to make the choice for a new direction in the country.

And I'm looking forward to helping to lead that.

Keith Olbermann: One more campaign question. It pertains to not knowing someone or something. This is a question I have not really heard asked directly of anybody in a position perhaps to answer it, let alone answered.

In your opinion, is Governor Palin experienced enough and qualified enough to become president of the United States in the relatively short-term future?

Senator Barack Obama: Well, you know, I'll let you ask Governor Palin that when I'm sure she'll be appearing on your show.

(Laughter)
Senator Barack Obama: But rather than focus on a resume, I just want to focus on where she wants to take the country. As far as I can tell, there has not been any area, economic policy or foreign policy, in which she is different from John McCain or George Bush.

In many ways, in fact, she agrees with George Bush even more than John McCain. So if John McCain agrees with Bush 90 percent of the time, maybe with her it's 97 percent. And so my - the thrust of our argument is going to be that the McCain/Palin ticket is offering the same stuff that has resulted in the middle class struggling, not seeing their incomes go up, seeing their costs go up, falling deeper into debt, at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure, unable to save or retire.

Those are going to be I think the issues that ultimately matter to the voters, and that's why I'm trying to offer to them a very clear set of prescriptions, very clear ideas about what we intend to do, how we want to change the tax code, stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, give 95 percent of Americans tax relief.

Have an energy policy that is serious about climate change, is serious about weaning ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil, investing in solar and wind and biodiesel so we've got energy independence and creating jobs here in the United States, having a health care system that makes sure that we don't have 47 million people without health insurance.

That message of possibility is, I think, the one that the American people are looking for.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Eagle Forum 2006 Governor's Candidate Questionnaire

Eagle Forum 2006 Governor's Candidate Questionnaire

Monday, July 31, 2006
2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire

The following questionnaire was sent to all candidates for Governor with their responses listed in the order we received them.
JB = John Binkley (R ) http://www.binkley06.com/
SP = Sarah Palin (R ) http://www.palinforgovernor.com/
FM = Frank Murkowski (R ) http://www.frankmurkowski.com/
MH = Merica Hlatcu (R )
GH = Gerald Heikes (R ) http://www.heikesontherock.com/
TK = Tony Knowles (D) http://tonyknowles.com/
EC = Eric Croft (D) http://www.ericcroft.com/
BL = Bruce Lemke (D)
EB = Eddie Burke (AIP) http://www.eddieburke.com/
DD = Daniel DeNardo (AIP)
DW = DonWright (AIP)

1. Complete the sentence by checking the applicable phrases (you can check more than one).
Abortion should be:
Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
Legal in case of rape and incest.
Legal if the baby is handicapped.
Legal if the baby has a genetic defect.
Legal in the first trimester.
Legal in the second trimester.
Legal in the third trimester.
Other:__________________

JB: Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
SP: I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?
JB: We should always encourage parents to participate in the curricula decisions of our school.
SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
JB: We should not exclude abstinence-until-marriage education programs.
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

4. Will you support efforts to raise or lower the mandatory age of education? Why or why not?
JB: No.
SP: No, again, parents know better than government what is best for their children.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

5. Will you support an effort to expand hate-crime laws?
JB: No.
SP: No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

6a. Do you support the expansion of gambling in Alaska?
JB: No.
SP: No, in so many cases, gambling has shown ill effects on families and as Governor I would not propose expansion legislation.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

6b Would you sign any bills that expand gaming in our state?
JB: No.
SP: No.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

7. Do you support statewide restrictions on the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another?
JB: Yes.
SP: Yes.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

8. Do you support parental choice in the spending of state educational dollars?
JB: As it relates to home schooling, we should give parents options in program spending.
SP: Within Alaska law, I support parents deciding what is the best education venue for their child.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

9. Do you support legislation requiring labor unions to obtain permission from their members before using dues for political purposes?
JB: No Response
SP: Yes, unions represent their workers and as such, should be accountable to them
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
JB: No. The constitutional amendment was clear to me.
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
JB: No.
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian Socialist. "Under God" was not added until 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance. -ed)
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

12. In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?
JB: I will always support and work to strengthen families.
SP: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights. (That's the only liberty that she finds important?)
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics

Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics
By Michael Kinsley

Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town, and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey. Although Palin praised John McCain in her acceptance speech as a man who puts the good of his country ahead of partisan politics, McCain pretty much proved the opposite with his selection of a running mate whose main asset is her ability to reignite the culture wars. So maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.

Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said, "No, thanks," to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said, "Yes, please," until this project became a symbol and political albatross.

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 21/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

View photos of Sarah Palin here.

Under the state constitution, the governor of Alaska has unusually strong powers to shape the state budget. At the Republican Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you, the people, against it, the government, could find in wasteful spending under her control.

One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall-profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad and also on the theory that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells at more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.

Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.

Why is a windfall-profits tax good for Alaska but not for the U.S.? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? People in Alaska are better than people in the rest of the U.S. They're more American. Although there are small towns and farms and high school hockey teams in the lower 48, there are fewer down here, per capita, than in Alaska. And there are many more journalists and pollsters and city dwellers and other undesirables who might benefit if every American had the same right to leech off the government as do the good citizens of Sarah Palin's Alaska

Palin Flouts Law Regarding Native Rights

1. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Subsistence Fishing

Perhaps no issue is of greater importance to Alaska Native peoples as the right to hunt and fish according to ancient customary and traditional practices, and to carry on the subsistence way of life for future generations.

Governor Sarah Palin has consistently opposed those rights. Once in office, Governor Palin decided to continue litigation thatseeks to overturn every subsistence fishing determination the federal government has ever made in Alaska.
(State of Alaska v. Norton, 3:05-cv-0158-HRH (D. Ak).)

In pressing this case, Palin decided against using the Attorney General (which usually handles State litigation) and instead continued contracting with Senator Ted Stevens' brother-in-law's law firm (Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot).

The goal of Palin's law suit is to invalidate all the subsistence fishing regulations the federal government has issued to date to protect Native fishing, and to force the courts instead to take over the roll of setting subsistence regulations. Palin's law suit seeks to diminish subsistence fishing rights in order to expand sport and commercial fishing.

In May 2007, the federal court rejected the State's main challenge, holding that Congress in 1980 had expressly granted the U.S. Interior and Agriculture Departments the authority to regulate and protect Native and rural subsistence fishing activitiesin Alaska.
(Decision entered May 15, 2007 (Dkt. No. 110).)

Notwithstanding this ruling, Palin continues to argue in the litigation that the federal subsistence protections are too broad, and should be narrowed to exclude vast areas from subsistence fishing, in favor of sport and commercial fishing. Palin opposes subsistence protections in marine waters, on many of the lands that Natives selected under their 1971 land claims settlement with the state and federal governments, and in many of the rivers where Alaska Natives customarily fish.
(Alaska Complaint at 15-18.)

Palin also opposes subsistence fishing protections on Alaska Native federal allotments that were deeded to individuals purposely to foster Native subsistence activities. All these issues are now pending before the federal district court.
2. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Subsistence Hunting
Palin has also sought to invalidate critical determinations the Federal Subsistence Board has made regarding customary and traditional uses of game, specifically to take hunting opportunities away from Native subsistence villagers and thereby enhance sport hunting.

Palin's attack here on subsistence has focused on the Ahtna Indian people in Chistochina. Although the federal district court has rejected Palin's challenge, she has carried on an appeal that was argued in August 2008.
(State of Alaska v. Fleagle, No. 07-35723 (9th Cir.).)

In both hunting and fishing matters, Palin has continued uninterrupted the policies initiated by the former Governor Frank Murkowski Administration, challenging hunting and fishing protections that Native people depend upon for their subsistence way of life in order to enhance sport fishing and hunting opportunities. Palin's lawsuits are a direct attack on the core way of life of Native Tribes in rural Alaska.

3. Palin has attacked Alaska Tribal Sovereignty

Given past court rulings affirming the federally recognized tribal status of Alaska Native villages, Palin does not technically challenge that status. But Palin argues that Alaska Tribes have no authority to act as sovereigns, despite their recognition.
So extreme is Palin on tribal sovereignty issues that she has sought to block tribes from exercising any authority whatsoever, even over the welfare of Native children, adhering to a 2004 legal opinion issued by the former Murkowski Administration that no such jurisdiction exists (except when a state court transfers a matter to a tribal court).
Both the state courts and the federal courts have struck down Palin's policy of refusing to recognize the sovereign authority of Alaska Tribes to address issues involving Alaska Native children.
Native Village of Tanana v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-12194 CI (judgment entered Aug. 26, 2008) (Ak. Super. Ct.); Native Kaltag Tribal Council v. DHHS, No. 3:06-cv-00211-TMB (D. Ak.), pending on appeal No 08-35343 (9th Cir.)).

Nonetheless, Palin's policy of refusing to recognize Alaska tribal sovereignty remains unchanged.

4. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Languages

Palin has refused to accord proper respect to Alaska Native languages and voters by refusing to provide language assistance to Yup'ik speaking Alaska Native voters. As a result, Palin was just ordered by a special three-judge panel of federal judges to provide various forms of voter assistance to Yup'ik voters residing in southwest Alaska.
Nick v. Bethel, No. 3:07-cv-0098-TMB (D. Ak.) (Order entered July 30, 2008).

Citing years of State neglect, Palin was ordered to provide trained poll workers who are bilingual in English and Yup'ik; sample ballots in written Yup'ik; a written Yup'ik glossary of election terms; consultation with local Tribes to ensure the accuracy of Yup'ik translations; a Yup'ik language coordinator; and pre-election and post-election reports to the court to track the State's efforts.

In sum, measured against some the rights that are most fundamental to Alaska Native Tribes – the subsistence way of life, tribal sovereignty and voting rights – Palin's record is a failure.

Lloyd B. Miller
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse,
Miller & Munson, LLP
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 700
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907)258-6377
Facsimile: (907)272-8332
E-Mail: lloyd@sonosky.net
Temporary New York City phone: (212) 204-6394