WHOO-HOO

Okay, enough said! Yes, I'm ecstatic over the results of the Election. Whoo-frakkin' - hoo!

As my last official blog of the 2008 election, I would like to commend (in an odd sort of way) Senator John McCain for accepting blame for his failed election. Very few people today are willing to step up to the proverbial plate and say hey, I'm responsible and I'm sorry. In his concession speech, John McCain spoke those admirable words.

I'd like to point out, to him, to the country, that he is not solely to blame for his failure to get 270 electoral votes. The majority of the blame can be summed up in one, very simple word: Bush. Yes, our current President, as well as the Republicans in charge, along with some Democrats as well, are partially - if not majorly (I know, not a word, but I'm using it anyway) to blame for John McCain's failure to garner 270 electoral votes.

With that said, Senator McCain made a few missteps along the way:

• First - instead of sticking to his ideal of running an honorable campaign, he ran a dishonorable campaign.
• Second - he never should have suspended his campaign because of the economic crisis. He did himself more harm than good with that act, and then whined continuously about that act for the rest of his campaign.
• Third - he underestimated the effects of the economy, and George W. Bush, on the American voters.
• Fourth - he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate!!!! WTF!!!! Before her nomination as his running mate, who in the heck had heard of her? He picked - in my opinion at least - her for her gender alone and not her qualifications. That, my friends, is sexist!

Still, he accepted the blame, in part, for his failed campaign, so the man has earned some of my respect. I'm just saying . . .

S

Everybody is talking . . .

Everybody is talking . . . about dear Sarah P and the fact that she recently went rogue and released her inner diva into the outer world. The fact is, I don't like her inner diva anymore in the outer world, than I liked her before she released her diva.

My question: why did it take her so long to release her inner diva? Why now, after months in the spotlight, is she suddenly trying to step away from the puppet strings of the Republican Party? What about in the first days as the spotlight first shined on her? Why now? Because she - in my opinion - is looking out only for herself (somewhat admirable, I must say, if not a little bit too late) and her political future. She is not looking toward November 2008, but rather November 2012 when she could (oh, shudder at the thought) attempt to run for President. Excuse me while I go barf. The only thing scarier than dear Sarah P as Vice President, is dear Sarah P as President. I think I'll need therapy (massive, massive amounts of therapy) if that ever happens.

Okay, back to what this post is about: dear Sarah Ps slow realization that her public image was doing her no good, no good at all. So, she steps to the forefront, grabs the proverbial reins, and attempts to wrest control of her life back from the all consuming GOP. She is called rogue and a diva for daring to even attempt to snip at the puppet strings so artfully (well, not really artfully, more travesty-like than anything) controlled by the GOP. Many women (no offense meant) are calling the term sexist. Yes, the term is sexist. The sad fact is, dear Sarah P, for whatever reason, allowed the GOP to present her as they did. She should have said no, this is not me, choose somebody else. She did not. She made the choice to allow them to present her as they (GOP) did. She made the choice to bow down to the pressure of her chosen political party. She made the choice to let the GOP, McCain advisers, McCain himself, or whoever, control what she said, when she said it, and all that jazz. The choice, my friends, was hers and hers alone. No one forced dear Sarah P to do anything. She alone made that choice, perhaps (though doubtful) for the greater good; but perhaps (much more likely) for her own political good.

In the end, her choices have made her a joke. Her choices have painted an ugly portrait of dear Sarah P. In the end, whatever terms (sexist or not) are used against her, whatever portrait the American public has of her, are all by her choice. If she had stood up for herself sooner, if she had said hey, thanks, but no thanks to the $150,000 wardrobe and make-over, than perhaps some respect might exist for her right now. If she had not put her political (future or otherwise) ahead of herself, than . . . well, I wouldn't be writing this blog.

Everybody is talking about dear Sarah P because she failed to stand up for herself in the first place. I'm just saying . . .

S

Random Thoughts About Sarah Palin

Obviously, my I Want list is not working . . . yet. I still have hope.

So, I'm scanning the Internet (cnn.com - favorite news site), and what do I find, an interesting article with a ton of different pieces of information. The best, dear Sarah P talking about her $150,000 make-over. First, I'll admit, there is a double-standard in talking about her hair, make-up and wardrobe. Second - she still accepted a brand spanking new top of the line wardrobe.

According to dear Sarah P "most of the clothes are still in her campaign airplane . . . and the designer clothing she has worn, she said, will be returned, auctioned off or donated to charity" (http://www.cnn.com/). In fact, her "favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet" (http://www.cnn.com/).

First - thousands upon thousands of dollars of clothes are just sitting in an airplane? We are in the middle of an economic crisis where people are having a hard time putting gas in their cars and food on their table, let alone buying new clothes - and she has a frigging new wardrobe sitting on her airplane??? Go figure.

Second - the clothes will allegedly be donated to charity after the election. What charity? The RNC??? Like they need more money. I mean, if the clothes are going to be donated to charity, I'd like to think the money would go to a worthy organization . . . American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, a cancer organization, AIDS organization, etc.

Third - So, if dear Sarah P's favorite store is a thrift store, then why in the heck is she wearing the designer clothes? Why not present herself as a real person, and not some RNC puppet with the strings clearly showing? I'd be far more impressed - if that's even possible - with her had she presented herself to me, and not the image the RNC thought would draw in more votes. For the record - the clothes, the cars, the house, the jewelry - do not impress me. People - on their own, no adornments - impress me. I don't care what you wear, drive, or where you live. I care about you - as a person. It's that simple, and perhaps all politicians should get a clue!

Now, because it's so obvious, I must comment on her choice of stores. Out of the Closet??? Uh, is she sure it's not gay owned (you know her stance on gay marriage by now)???? I'm just saying . . .

Need I Say More

Check this out! Apparently, dear Sarah P has altered some of the expense accounts during her Governorship of Alaska. It seems that dear Sarah P took her children on some trips she shouldn't have, but then altered the accounts to make it look like it was official business. According to the article . . . In the amended reports, Palin added phrases such as "First Family attending" and "First Family invited" to explain the girls' attendance. "The governor said, 'I want the purpose and the reason for this travel to be clear,' " said Linda Perez, state director of administrative services. Uh, wouldn't logic - I know, I'm talking about dear Sarah P and have stepped into oxy-moronic territory again - dictate that you fill out the forms correctly the first time, and not once you know the forms are about to become public record. Please, dear Sarah P, give the American people some credit!!!

Here's another of my favorites: The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel. I mean, when is it official business for the State of Alaska to pay for the Governor and her daughters to watch a snowmobile race???? A 5 day stay for a 5 hour conference? I mean, really, dear Sarah P should have to pay back the State of Alaska for the extra 4 days she stayed in New York . . . at the State of Alaska's expense.

Do we really want this woman one step away from the Presidency of the United States? We have enough of a deficit right now without allowing dear Sarah P anywhere near a governmental expense form. I'm just saying . . .

S

Sarah Palin is at it again. Shouldn't her views be quite similar to that of John McCain, especially since she is his running mate? Yes, I thought so too. Recently, however, she opened her mouth and . . . well, we all know what happens when she opens her mouth. Nothing good. Explosive gas. Anyhow, she clearly stated that she goes against McCain's beliefs about same sex marriage, and the fact that there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting such marriages.

Sarah Palin is a throwback to an ignorant past America can no longer afford to embrace. It is time for our country to move forward, and not backward. It is time for the People in Power (PiPs), to embrace change, rather than continue to stagnate in the Pool of Outdated Beliefs. It is time to stop oppressing people on a daily basis. It is 2008, people, not 1908. We are an allegedly enlightened society. Discrimination is wrong. Applying Biblical passages out of context to suit your own ignorance, is wrong. Wake up and smell the Starbucks!

Now that I've ranted about that, let's explore the issue of marriage.

First off - marriage is based on religious beliefs. It doesn't matter whether a judge marries a couple, a priest, a pastor, someone with an Internet minister license, or a justice of the peace. The concept of marriage is religious based. It's in the Bible, after all.

Second - the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly sets forth a separation between Church and State.

Third - so, if marriage is a religious based institution, and you enact laws to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, isn't that unconstitutional since there is clearly not a separation of Church and State in that instance? Hmmmm . . . In my opinion - YES! Since there is no way to remove the religious stigma from marriage, it does not seem legal (at least to me) for individual states or the country as a whole to enact legislation that prohibits marriage between same sex couples without violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Fourth - why in the hell hasn't someone challenged the legislation enacted???

Okay, that's about it for right now. With Sarah Palin around, and 13 days left until the election, I'm sure I'll have plenty to blog about in the coming days. She is just an absolute joy, isn't she? She provides so much fodder for my blog. Geesh!

S

Brilliance

I just hate it when someone with greater brilliance then I have, beats me to the punch. I couldn't have said it better. In fact, I couldn't come close to saying it better. I bow to the greater brilliance of Garrison Keillor. In a recent article he wrote the following:

It was dishonest, cynical men who put forward a clueless young woman for national office, hoping to juice up the ticket, hoping she could skate through two months of chaperoned campaigning, but the truth emerges: The lady is talking freely about matters she has never thought about. The American people have an ear for B.S. They can tell when someone's mouth is moving and the clutch is not engaged. When she said, "One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day, American people, Joe Six-Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars," people smelled gas.

Here is the full article. Have I mentioned I think this article is brilliant? If not, I do. If I did . . . well, get over it. I'm allowed to repeat myself. It is my blog after all. Read the full article. He really nails things down. I just love the visual of the above paragraph, especially the line "people smelled gas". Too damn funny.

S

Association

The entries just keep coming! Check out this article from cnn.com. The word for the day is association. Barack Obama is continually being slammed by the Republican candidates for President and Vice President for his association with William Ayers, a 1960s radical; a terrorist. This article turns the table on Senator McCain and lists a few of his associates: Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd. Each of these men were racists, to such an extreme that one of them belonged to the Klu Klux Klan (definitely a terrorist organization) and all of them wholly supported the segregation and oppression of African Americans. Now, as the article points out, based on the logic of John McCain and Sarah Palin with Obama's association with Ayers, McCain is associated with . . . well, I painted the picture for you, and I'm sure you can see it clearly.

As I pointed out to my co-worker the other day, nobody truly knows their friends. You might have hung out with a great guy in high school, only to find out that he's a rapist. Your best friend might abuse her children. There might be a sex offender living in your neighborhood. By the (misguided) logic used by McCain and Palin, you (yes, a generalization that would make any English teacher . . . or school principal cringe) are guilty by . . . association. Since you knew the child abuser, rapist, or lived in the same neighborhood as the sex offender, you are - in the words of Sarah Palin - palling around with them. Don't you hate it when your words come back to bite you in the nether region????

In the end, as the article points out, the association argument is "weak and impotent" (where's Bob Dole when you need him - EDS commercial, people!).

Lastly, the best point of all of the article is: What I find to be more deplorable is to hear McCain advisers say they want to turn the page to anything but the issue number one -- the economy. (cnn.com - 10/08/2008)

Amen to that, my brother!!

S

Read This

Go here. The link is to a blog written by an 82 year old woman about Sarah Palin. I find it absolutely hysterical. Too dang funny. OMG!!!

Sarah Palin Forgets To Tell the Full Truth . . . Again

Here we go again . . . does she never learn?

Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said Saturday, October 4, that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (cnn.com)

Once again, poor, deluded Sarah Palin makes a - mostly - false comment. She is, in part, according to this article, referring to 1960s radical William Ayers, who happens to live in the same neighborhood as Barack Obama. This is not somebody that Obama pals around with, only someone who lives in the same neighborhood. A fact which Obama brought up earlier this year.

The actual facts that poor deluded Sarah Palin failed to relay in her speech are:

There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are. (cnn.com - factcheck)

I guess her false statements should be expected. Barack is making similar statements. What's a poor voter to do? Go to one of the many fact check sites and spend a little time researching the truth before making the final decision to vote. The fact is (at least in my opinion), there is not a politician alive who allegedly tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Politicians have a history of taking things out of context and presenting them as truth, hoping beyond hope that voters are going to take them at their word. Isn't that another one of those oxy-morons? What person in their right mind would believe what a politician tells them? Have we learned nothing from no new taxes? Or wait, what about the infamous - and nonexistent - WMDs???

I'm just saying . . .

S

Is it so hard for a politician to tell the truth?

Case in point - during last night's debate, Sarah Palin made the following statement "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

What Sarah, obviously either at her own discretion or the insistence of the Republican Party, failed to mention was the following:

–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Fact Check Verdict: Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.

The fact is, Sarah Palin told enough of the truth for her statement not to be an outright lie. She just failed to fill in pertinent details, obviously hoping the voting public was ignorant and would not bother checking facts. What, is she living beneath a rock?? Google is my friend. A good portion of the voting public knows how - and will - to check facts. Perhaps Sarah, and every other politician out there, might want to consider that option before they lie by omission.

Now, since I'm being fair here, let's pull out the following statement from Joe Biden - "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do forthe health care industry (is) deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

Now for the facts, my friends.

In Congress, Sen. John McCain has frequently supported deregulation. Some aspects of that deregulation are now widely blamed for the problems on Wall Street.

In the current issue of a magazine for the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain discussed a change he wants to bring to the health care market: allowing people to buy plans across state lines. "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the lastdecade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation," he wrote in the magazine called "Contingencies."

Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama have pointed to the first part of that quote to bolster their argument that McCain wants to see the health care industry undergo the same changes as the banking industry. But the reform McCain wants for health care — state deregulation — is only one of several types of deregulation that reshaped the banking industry. McCain has not proposed reshaping the health care industry in all the same ways as banks.
McCain and his opponents disagree over what impact state deregulation could have on the health care industry. McCain says the increased competition would benefit consumers; Obama says consumers would lose key protections, and insurance companies would be given more power.

Though a frequent fan of deregulation, McCain blames the current Wall street mess partly on federal regulatory agencies failing to do their jobs, and vows to "replace the outdated patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight" with a high-level, bipartisan oversight board.

Verdict:Misleading. McCain does want to overhaul state oversight of health care, but the deregulation he is calling for is not nearly as extensive as what was done to the banking system.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.

Again, Biden told a partial instead of a full truth. In effect, like Sarah Palin he lied. Enough with the lies, people. Try telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for a change.


Also, check out this - very interesting.
S

Age

In a recent speech, Sarah Palin - again reading words written for her, because after the Katie Couric interview, everybody knows she can't speak on her own - made the following comment about Joe Biden: "I haven't met him, but I've been hearing about him since, like, second grade." Okay, here's the rub: Joe Biden is younger than John McCain. Isn't her slap in the face to Biden a double slap to McCain? I would think the Republican drones that write the speeches, would have a little more sense - oh, wait, that's an oxymoron isn't it? - than to bring up Biden's age, when McCain is older. I'm just saying . . .

S

The Honeymoon is Over!!

For those who even care . . .

• Sarah Palin's favorable rating drops, unfavorable rating rises
• Barack Obama regains lead in national polls
• Obama has been aggressively attacking John McCain's economic policies
• Neither candidate has shown expertise on economy, David Gergen says

The above bullet points come from this article.

As you'll find out if you're not lazy and actually click on the linked article, the honeymoon with Palin is over. Her favorable rating has dropped and her unfavorable rating has increased. I guess more and more people are checking out the fact websites and realizing that there is more - not necessarily better - to Sarah Palin than the Republican hype first seemed to indicate. I could have told you that much - please see earlier posts about Palin and the links to anti-Palin sites and well as political fact checker sites. In all honesty, Sarah Palin's emergence into this election was cleverly staged by the Republican Party. Her speech was written for her, and I'm she she had hours of rehearsals and couching to make her appear invincible. Obviously, the people behind her presentation failed to consider the fact that the majority of the American public is NOT stupid, and has the capability of googling Sarah Palin and learning the actual facts that she, and the Republican party, don't want them to know.

The election is far from over. Anything can, and probably will, still happen. What we, the American public, need to do is stay informed, stay involved, and keep checking those facts. The political ads are slanted and very biased. The political ads take things out of context and paint a very inaccurate picture. The only way to learn the truth is to research the facts and make an informed decision on Election Day.

Okay, I'm done with this rant . . . and very little snark was involved.

S