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

The Debate

This will be brief and to the point. At last night's debate, when Senator McCain was asked to prioritize three things (health care, economy, and something else - sorry, first cup of coffee hasn't hit yet), he made the statement that he would work on all three at the same time. Excuse me, is that the sound of ice forming in hell? This is the same man who could not multitask and focus on his campaign and the economic crisis at the same time. This is the same man who suspended his campaign to help the economy. BTW, in case anyone is wondering, the economy is still in the crapper.

As I was thinking about this entry this morning, I realized one simple thing: I was assuming that Senator McCain was incapable of multitasking, i.e., running his campaign and dealing with the economic crisis. After careful thought, I realize that there wasn't any multitasking involved at all. Senator McCain is not running his Presidential campaign, his co-workers, advisers, and speechwriters are running his campaign. They tell him where to go, hand him a speech, and prepare statements for him when he wants to attack Barack Obama. So really, there was no need to suspend his campaign since he wasn't really - at least in my opinion - doing much in the first place. Now, if he'd just quit whining about suspending his campaign, which, technically was never suspended, since all the little people were still working behind the scenes, I'd be a really happy camper.

Also, in case you watched the debate, go here to get the facts. Oh, and lastly, John McCain repeated some of the things Sarah Palin said about Barack Obama during the Vice Presidential debate. I guess it's fairly obvious now that originality does not exist with the Republican ticket. I'm just saying . . .

S

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