This man is going to make being an American "cool" again:
Before I post this Washington Post story, I've and most probably a lot a people here and everywhere have been reading about the recent drop in oil prices and the reasons why it's happening. What hasn't been reported as much is how we are giving the Big Three Automakers 25 Billion. I even hear that GM wants 10 Billion more to smooth out a possible merger with Chrysler. As I said previously, that's fine if the purpose is to save American jobs. However, as a precondition for giving out this "corporate welfare" (When the Republicans say that Barack Obama is a socialist, tell them "It takes one to know one!), they should start making the cars we need to drive: Conventional Hybrids (Both Gas-Electric and Diesel-Electric ), Plug-In Hybrids, Clean Diesel whatever will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If they can't do that, then maybe they should die. Moreover, what's the point of these automakers suing our state governments just because we want what they've won't give us?
Also, we need to aid companies like Tesla Motors, Aptera Motors, AFS Trinity and Phoenix Motorcars who are struggling to design and build the vehicles we need.
Until that happens, keep riding that bus or and train to work. Keep pedaling on that bicycle to get where you need to go because we need to resist that "crack pipe" which is oil.
By Warren BrownSunday, October 26, 2008; G02
We have the chance to remake the automobile industry, to strengthen America's technological muscle. But we are frittering away the opportunity.
We are mired in nonproductive, ideological arguments over "socialism" vs. "free enterprise." Worse, I fear, we are being suckered by the siren song of cheap gasoline.
The national media are celebrating the fall of pump prices below the $4 a gallon for regular unleaded nearly all of us were paying this summer. In many parts of the country, pump prices have now sunk below $3 a gallon.
Statistical evidence does not yet support suspicion of recidivism in the matter of American consumer profligacy in the consumption of fossil fuels. But there is anecdotal reason to worry.
I have been getting calls and receiving e-mails from readers asking whether now is a good time -- to paraphrase the sense of those communications -- to buy a truck or a full-size sport-utility vehicle. The thinking goes thusly: Almost all car companies are offering massive rebates on slow-selling trucks and SUVs. That makes them a bargain. Big rebates plus falling gasoline prices now make those big rides a good deal.
It is delusional thinking, but no more so than that taking place in the halls of Congress, where lawmakers apparently are laboring under the illusion that we have time to save the domestic automobile industry, to beef up America's prowess in fuel-efficient technologies.
We don't.
American car companies and the tens of thousands of jobs connected to them, directly and indirectly, are in bad shape. Soaring gasoline prices this summer and frozen credit this autumn have walloped their sales. Global regulatory changes requiring increased fuel efficiency and cleaner emissions rapidly are increasing product development costs.
We can wag fingers and self-righteously shout that the domestic car companies are reaping the unhappy fruits of the thoughtless seeds they planted. Schadenfreude is joy in hypocrisy. We bought all of those big trucks and big-engine cars. And we demanded more of them as long as we had access to the developed world's cheapest gasoline. But we whined like babies and screamed for more fuel-efficient vehicles like infants crying for nipples when gasoline topped $4 a gallon.
Put another way, we -- consumers and politicians -- were complicit in the automobile industry's reluctance to do better in the arenas of fuel economy and emissions control. The natural tendency in a purely profit-oriented, capitalist system is to give consumers what they are demanding at a price that returns a handsome reward on investment in product development.
Increased fuel efficiency and emissions controls usually require increased development costs. If consumers aren't demanding those things and, by implication, are not willing to pay more for them, why invest the enormous amount of money to make them available?
Aware of that capitalist conundrum, governments, the U.S. government chief among them, exercised the socialist lever of regulation. Car companies would have to improve fuel economy and emissions control by government mandate. But this is where things got dicey in the United States.
In Europe and Asia, governments provided financial incentives to the car companies to move forward in the development of alternative fuels and propulsion systems. In the United States, we embraced socialism when it came to regulating the industry but demanded hard-knuckles capitalism in compliance with our regulatory demands.
It is an approach designed for failure.
What is needed now is a concerted application of common sense.
Congress can do that by immediately releasing the $25 billion it has promised the industry in direct, low-interest loans to help it redesign cars and trucks for a more fuel-efficient future. It can do that by supporting independent companies, such as AFS Trinity of Washington state, in advanced propulsion research. It can do that by making consumers assume some responsibility for energy conservation -- by placing a floor, such as $4 a gallon for regular unleaded, beneath pump prices for gasoline.
There is nothing wrong with socialism as long as it actually produces something for the general good. Saving domestic car companies speaks to that good. Helping those companies become competitive in future technologies will ensure the continuation of an American economy attached to something real -- product development and manufacturing. That helps to create a future for American employment.
It's time for the government to stop fooling around and release the money it promised the industry in those direct, low-interest loans.
Ah heck! Let me get a piece of that PB&J sandwich! And can I play with some of your toys?
October 30, 2008, 10:30 AM
Sen. Bond Warns Palin Crowd That Obama Wants Judges Who Empathize With “The Gay”Posted by Scott Conroy|
(CBS)From CBS News' Scott Conroy: (CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO.) - Taking the stage as one of the pre-program speakers at a Sarah Palin rally here in Rush Limbaugh’s hometown, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, fired up the crowd by warning them about Barack Obama’s judicial philosophy. “Just this past week, we saw what Barack Obama said about judges,” Bond said. “He said, ‘I’m tired of these judges who want to follow what the Founding Fathers said and the Constitution. I want judges who have a heart, have an empathy for the teenage mom, the minority, the gay, the disabled. We want them to show empathy. We want them to show compassion.’” Bond then seized on Obama’s comments to Joe The Plumber, saying the Democrat wants to redistribute wealth. “He thinks this country should be a government—not a government of laws, but a government of compassion and empathy, not of laws,” Bond said. Bond was referring to Obama's answer to "Joe the Plumber's" question earlier this month "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama said on Oct. 12 in Holland, Ohio. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Palin is scheduled to take the stage in just a few minutes, but there are still thousands of people in line outside waiting the Show-Me Center. After this event, Palin heads to Erie, Pennsylvania, for a closed national security roundtable and a rally. She’ll end her day with a rally in Williamsport, home of the Little League World Series.
Like that kid on the Simpsons say, "Ha-ha!" :
How to Deal with Obama Sign Stealers by: Karl-Thomas MusselmanSun Oct 26, 2008 at 11:10 PM CDT Make your yard sign more permanent. After all, it's harder to steal the entire yard. Emailed to us from an Austin resident...
I need another sign, as mine was stolen. And, tired of having Obama signs stolen from my neighborhood, I decided to make one that can't be (easily) taken; and I spray-painted a giant 14-foot Obama logo on my front yard.
I'm posting this story in part because the comments uttered by some McCain supporters would affect thousands of workers and because I disagree with these comments. Though I have in the past have suggested that the Big Three automakers shouldn't be helped, I felt I needed to clarify theses statements. I believe these automakers should be helped in only in the context of saving thousands, maybe millions of American jobs. However, this aid should come with stipulations, stipulations that up to this point haven't been met. The first stipulation would be for American automakers to implement a program to design, produce and market fuel-efficient vehicles. The second one: To achieve an average of 40 MPG on all vehicles driven in the U.S. The third? To give aid to other American vehicle manufacturers who are making the vehicles of tomorrow. The fourth? To stop the outsourcing of auto manufacturer jobs to other countries. Sadly, there are those in the McCain campaign who think it makes sense to put American automakers in the cold even though doing so would endanger jobs. That doesn't make sense and it's my hope that Senator Obama doesn't share the views of some in the McCain campaign:
U.S. should not aim to save carmakers: McCain adviser
37 mins ago
DETROIT (Reuters) – The U.S. government can assist automakers but cannot save them and any aid should be limited so taxpayers do not become ensnared in a long-term investment in the embattled industry, an economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Monday.
"I don't think the government can rescue the industry," Carly Fiorina, former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Corp, told Reuters at an event in suburban Detroit.
"Whatever the government does, it should not take away the fundamentals of risk-taking. Sometimes it leads to rewards and sometimes consequences, downside," she said. "In other words, the auto industry cannot be saved from its own bad bets."
Fiorina also said it remained an open question whether the U.S. auto industry needed aid beyond the $25 billion of low-interest loans already approved by the Bush administration and said any additional aid "depends on the particulars of the circumstance."
Her remarks came as a source told Reuters the U.S. Treasury Department was considering aid of at least $5 billion to facilitate a merger between General Motors Corp and Chrysler, through direct capital or purchases of auto loans.
The U.S. auto industry is struggling with a long-term decline as sales in the United States have slumped to two-decade lows and the economic slowdown that pressured North America has spread to Europe and other regions.
"One of the things I think will happen is that the government will expect taxpayers to be repaid, at a minimum in a neutral way and potentially in a profitable way," Fiorina said.
The government, now as an investor, will "have the requirement to understand how those investments are being used to protect taxpayers," she said.
On Sunday, McCain said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that his preference would be for the auto industry to use the recently authorized $25 billion in low-interest loans that target retooling of plants first.
The sharp downturn in auto sales this year has left analysts questioning whether GM, Chrysler and rival Ford Motor Co have the liquidity to withstand the slump and complete restructuring plans.
The slump has set off fierce lobbying on behalf of the auto industry ahead of the U.S. presidential election, with supporters arguing that a bankruptcy of an automaker would have a cascading impact across the country.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, estimated that a failure of GM or Ford could threaten up to 2 million jobs including suppliers and dealers.
(Reporting by Soyoung Kim, writing by David Bailey, editing by Matthew Lewis)
Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Republicans everywhere are losing their flippin' minds except for the ones voting for Obama! ;) Take for example this news story from the Huffington Post:
Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC
California Candidate Launches Bizarre, Phone-Sex Robocall
October 27, 2008 12:54 PM
Zane Starkewolf is a ninth-level elven warrior from Dungeons and Dragons and self-professed "Green Republican" who's running against Mike Thompson in California's First District, and he's spent his Monday morning attempting to explain a robocall his campaign sent out over the weekend. Here's Starkewolf's statement on the matter:
I want to officially address the topic of the phone call that went out today from my campaign to individuals in District One. I acknowledge that the idea behind the ad, and indeed the execution of the call, was not the safe route to take. And if my run for office was simply for personal gain, I would not have taken a risk. But the content and the facts within the message were there and need to be discussed. Hopefully this call opens up the forum for discussion on the issues and on the representation which is so essential to our system.
What we are discussing today is the lack of alignment in representation in this district. Things are stagnant in Washington and accountability for one's actions and to one's district is severely lacking. I take the credit or the blame for the statement that went out today. The unpaid staffer who recorded and submitted the message may have been a little overly enthusiastic in the delivery, but I believe it is good to get enthusiasm back into politics.
As it turns out, the "overly enthusiastic" staffer basically thought the best way to get the "enthusiasm back into politics" was to put all of that enthusiasm into the pants of voters, because the robocall she sent out is basically a phone sex call.
"Mike Thompson has been a baaaaaad boy. We all said no to the bailout, but Thompson backed Bush. Just like he did with the Patriot act, uhhhhhh, vote YESSSSSSSSS! for Zane."You can listen to this nonsense here.
http://zane2008.com/uploads/soundclip.wav (Right click the link and select the "Save target as" option to save the file as a .wav to play with any supported media player)
"Let's think outside the box, let's not be scared, let's talk about the issues that really matter," says Starkewolf, who sadly, doesn't add, "And let's have this discussion whilst on the verge of explosive orgasms, together."
I forgive you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/bachmann-tapes-apology-ad_n_137689.html
Now people of MN: What's the word?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJBpL5ORWUo
Things are getting a bit crazy now for the McCain campaign. Gots to stick to the issues!:
John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson."
Verrilli also told TPM that the McCain spokesperson had claimed that the "B" stood for Barack. According to Verrilli, the spokesperson also told KDKA that Sarah Palin had called the victim of the alleged attack, who has since admitted the story was a hoax.
The KDKA reporter had called McCain's campaign office for details after seeing the story -- sans details -- teased on Drudge.
The McCain spokesperson's claims -- which came in the midst of extraordinary and heated conversations late yesterday between the McCain campaign, local TV stations, and the Obama camp, as the early version of the story rocketed around the political world -- is significant because it reveals a McCain official pushing a version of the story that was far more explosive than the available or confirmed facts permitted at the time.
The claims to KDKA from the McCain campaign were included in an early story that ran late yesterday on KDKA's Web site. The paragraphs containing these assertions were quickly removed from the story after the Obama campaign privately complained that KDKA was letting the McCain campaign spin a racially-charged version of the story before the facts had been established, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
The story with the removed grafs is still right here. We preserved the three missing grafs from yesterday:
A source familiar with what happened yesterday confirmed that the unnamed spokesperson was communications director Peter Feldman. Feldman was also quoted yesterday making virtually identical assertions on the Web site of another local TV station, WPXI. But those quotes, which we also preserved here, are also no longer available on WPXI's site, for reasons that are unclear.
This is problematic because the McCain campaign doesn't want to have been perceived as pushing an incendiary story that not only turned out to be a hoax but which police officials said today risked blowing up into a "national incident" and has local police preparing to file charges against the hoaxster.
There's no evidence that anyone from McCain national headquarters put out a version of events like this.
After the story appeared on KDKA's site and this and other pieces in the local press started flying around the political world, an Obama spokesperson in the state angrily insisted to KDKA that it was irresponsible for the station to air the McCain spokesperson's incendiary version of events before the facts were fully known, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
After that, KDKA went back to McCain's Pennsylvania spokesperson, Feldman, and asked if he stood by the story as he'd earlier told it, but he started backing off the story, a source familiar with the talks says. That prompted KDKA to remove the grafs.
Feldman couldn't immediately be reached, and a McCain HQ spokesperson declined to comment.
Concerning the quote that John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News made: John, it is SO OVER MAN!!!
Greg Mitchell
Posted October 24, 2008 | 11:42 AM (EST)
Fox News VP: If McCain Worker 'Mutilation' Story Is a Hoax His Campaign Is 'Over'
It had drawn wide local and national -- even political attention, with the McCain and Obama campaigns weighing in -- but now the Ashley Todd story has fallen apart. Police in Pittsburgh have now declared the tale a hoax and the woman, who has confessed, now faces charges for her deed.
Earlier today, John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News, commented on his blog there that "this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd's allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.
"If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."
He titled his posting: "Moment of Truth." Indeed.
It started yesterday afternoon with Matt Drudge screaming at the top of his site this afternoon in red type -- but no siren -- that a Pittsburgh campaign worker for McCain, age 20, had been viciously attacked and the letter "B" carved into her face, presumably by a Barack Obama fan. Her name, it soon emerged, was Ashley Todd and she had come to Pittsburgh from College Station, Texas, to help out.
It started to appear overblown (Drudge downgraded it to smaller, black type) as the police noted that it seemed to be a robbery ($60) and she did not seek medical attention. But later press reports said she would visit a hospital, Sarah Palin and maybe John McCain had reportedly called her and Obama has condemned the alleged assault, although McCain/Obama angle to story not yet confirmed.
Still later, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, and some others, grew skeptical. For one thing, the "B" was carved a little too lightly and perfectly -- and backward, as if done using a mirror. Smoking Gun probed a too-pat "Twitter" angle and Gawker and Wonkette looked at her MySpace page.
Now police say that evidence from the ATM that she reportedly visited did not match her account. And it turns out she changed her story, admitting that her assailant did not see a McCain bumper sticker and adding to her account a sexual assault and losing consciousness. Liberal bloggers poked all sorts of holes in the story, including the fact that the attack allegedly took place in a very public place. Drudge added a link titled "B...or B.S."?
Finally, early this afternoon, came word that she had made it all up.*Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher and its hot new blog The E&P Pub. His latest book on Iraq and the media is titled "So Wrong for So Long."
Ok, posting my first "Pro Palin" article! (Okay, stop booing, stop hissing until you read this article):
Pam AthertonPosted October 24, 2008 | 08:17 AM (EST) Why Some Smart Women Think Palin is a Good Choice
I was at the dentist yesterday and the hygienist asked me what I thought of the upcoming election. I looked at this woman who had sharp objects in her hand and I thought it might be prudent to take the non-committal route."Wow! Sure is something, huh? Most exciting election in my lifetime," I said, eyeing those tools of doom carefully. "What do you think?" (Years of working in radio has taught me to turn the question back on the questioner.)She told me that she didn't like Obama because he was "too slick, like a car salesman," but she showed disdain for John McCain's claim of 'I know how to do that.' She smirked at me "Well," she said "if you knew how to do it, why weren't you doing it? Why didn't you find bin Laden, and solve the financial mess?"I nodded. (I couldn't really do much else). When she removed the buzz saw and pick axe from my mouth I said "What about Sarah Palin?""Oh, I like her."Nowadays when people say that, I ask them why, largely because it is a concept that befuddles me. "Well, she's gutsy. And I think she's probably dealt with the Russians, being as how they are right there."We moved on to the economy with which EVERYone has a problem, so we were in safe territory, as least as far as my mouth and pain were concerned.But the interchange brought forward something that had been niggling at the back of my brain. Why do some smart women think Sarah Palin is a good choice for Vice President? Why do some smart women like her?This has been bothering me for some time. I have some very smart women friends and a few of them think Palin has what it takes. I don't get it. Why can't they see what I see and what many conservative pundits are falling all over themselves to say? Palin is not qualified.I called my friend Betti Hoeppner, the therapist. She reminded me of a situation from over 10 years ago when I had worked for a man who was very smart about some things, but would not accept that he was a bad manager. Everyone told him he was a dreadful manager, and still he would not believe it. I was befuddled then, too.In the course of our conversation she explained why. She told me that sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. For example: You think you are an honest person. That is your core belief. But you cheat on your taxes. Cheating on your taxes goes against the idea of you being an honest person. This is a very uncomfortable feeling, the cognitive dissonance. You really want to continue believing that you are an honest person, so you may rationalize that the government "owes" you anyway. But why do people hold the core belief that Palin is qualified in the first place? My friend Dr. Susan Bartell, the psychologist, was my next phone call."Think of it as a relationship," she told me. "Women are relationship-oriented, and many women feel that they are having one with the people they choose in the election. Some women say they could imagine themselves having coffee and pie with Palin around the dinner table."All right. I get that. Not my thing, but I get that.She told me that many women idealize their relationship partners. They see all the positive characteristics about that person and ignore the bad. This is especially true, Dr. Susan added, in the beginning of a relationship.Okay. This I get. Who hasn't fallen in love with the "idea" that we have created of a person, instead of the actual person? And lots of really smart women have done that!So for whatever reason they have chosen, some smart women have fallen in love with the "idea" of Sarah Palin. She's smart. She's gutsy. She's a woman. And she would be the first woman 'this close' to the Presidency.And what happens when these smart women are presented with contradictory evidence? "Let's go back to the relationship analogy," Dr. Susan says. "When our eyes finally open to someone, we have choices. We can either get out of the relationship (divorce), or we stay and deal with the cognitive dissonance."But Dr. Susan says that some women feel they don't have a choice. Their core belief is so strong that they don't believe they have an alternative. For example, perhaps they are strongly against pro-choice. Or they want a woman in the Executive Branch no matter what. Or they cannot subscribe to any of the democratic platform of ideas. At that point, they have no choice but to continue their idealization of Palin, thereby finding a way around their cognitive dissonance, albeit in an unhealthy way.So in order to keep idealizing her, our smart friends either deny (that Alaskan report didn't find her guilty of doing anything unlawful), rationalize (and besides, they were partisan), or ignore (I never heard about any report. Besides, I just like her!).The bottom line? When it comes to our smart women friends, we probably aren't going to be able to change their minds about Sarah Palin. They are either still idealizing her, or they have a core belief too strong to accept any alternatives. But at least now we know why these smart women are choosing to consider Palin qualified and will check the Republican box on the ballot. We just don't have to like it.
Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?
Hint: It's not the usual suspects:
October 24, 2008, 8:16 am Palin’s Makeup Stylist Fetches Highest Salary in 2-Week Period
By Michael Luo
Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staff member. It was Amy Strozzi, who was identified by the Washington Post this week as Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.
Ms. Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?”, was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone, according to the records. The campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi’s payment as “PERSONNEL SVC/EQUIPMENT.”
The payment on Oct. 10 made Ms. Strozzi the single highest-paid individual in the campaign for that two-week period. (There were more than two dozen companies that got larger payments than Ms. Strozzi). She easily beat out Mr. Scheunemann, who received $12,500 in the first half of October, and Ms. Wallace, who got $12,000.
In September, Ms. Strozzi was also paid $13,200 for “communications consulting.” But several individuals were paid more by the McCain campaign that month, including Mike DuHaime, the political director, who received $25,000 for “GOTV CONSULTING,” and Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers, who got $13,224 in salary.
There has been much scrutiny this week, of course, over the $150,000 Republican National Committee spent outfitting Ms. Palin in September at high-end department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, as well as for makeup services.
The campaign finance reports filed on Thursday night, which showed the McCain campaign and the R.N.C. had about $84 million left in the bank on Oct. 15, did not immediately appear to show any similar payments in the first half of October.
The real problem with Palin: Politicians who hype themselves as average working class parents, who are in reality, aren't who they say they are. What makes it worse is on the Huffington Post website, where most of the news about the $150,000 shopping spree that Sarah Palin took, there was another story just below in small print that had a YouTube Video featuring how the Obama Family Dresses on a Budget. In a campaign where Obama's opponent had described him as a "celebrity", this was an inelegant reminder on how John McCain had left the pretense of running an honorable campaign. These days, it important for a politician to “walk the walk” as well as talk the talk. Check out the Obama video at (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/the-obamas-discuss-dressi_n_137009.html):
The problem with Palin
(CNN) -- Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin likes to portray herself as an average American working mother.
But how many typical moms get $150,000 worth of merchandise from stylish stores and have strangers pay for it?
This week's revelation about the purchases was just one more surprise in the fast rise and apparent fall of the Republican Party's sudden superstar.
Remember, it was only two months ago that Palin was just the popular governor of Alaska, still an obscure figure in American politics. That changed in late August when John McCain chose her as his running mate.
Within days, she was generating the biggest excitement the McCain campaign had ever enjoyed, captivating the Republican Party, swelling the crowds at its rallies and drawing media coverage that overshadowed the Democrats.
One McCain advisor told me then that one of the practical problems she discovered as she criss-crossed the country was that she didn't bring enough clothes.
It seems her family didn't have enough clothes either, because suddenly there was some serious shopping.
A single visit to the fashionable department store Neiman Marcus cost more than $75,000, but that was only half of the total. The bills ultimately went to the Republican Party, which means that although they probably didn't know it, party donors paid for them.
Palin's problems go beyond clothes, though, to her very candidacy. In recent days, prominent Republicans, from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, have publicly criticized her lack of experience.
Ordinary Americans agree. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that in early September, when Palin was just starting out as a candidate, 47 percent of voters had a positive opinion of her, compared to 27 percent who felt negatively.
Now 47 percent have negative feelings, compared with 38 percent who feel positively.
And the new poll found that concern about Palin's qualifications is voters' top concern about McCain, ahead of every other issue in the election.
Voting day is less than two weeks away and most polls suggest that Barack Obama is headed for victory. The surprise is that Palin went from being McCain's best asset to his biggest problem. And the Republicans don't have much time, or an obvious way, to fix it.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/mann.ct.palin.clothes
2008 Cable News Network
Just posting this article from The Huffington Post:
Dawn Teo
Posted October 21, 2008 | 07:21 PM (EST)
McCain's Home State Party Imploding, Plagued By Infighting And Scandal
PHOENIX -- The Republican Party in John McCain's home state is fracturing under the weight of a series of misconduct charges that threaten to sink the party's already deeply troubled Arizona candidacies. The GOP problems here, which include infighting and ideological splits, underline arguments made nationally in the final weeks of the presidential campaign that the Republican party is in crisis.
Asked for comment at a fundraiser last week, a Republican consultant here simply said that the state GOP is in "desperate straits."
At the top of the list, perhaps, is news that the party is being forced to return $105,000 to an unidentified group originally reported only as "SCA" and which increasingly appears to be linked to GOP candidate Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Party insiders are also now publicly feuding with one another, some vowing to unseat the state party chair after the election season. Local television stations, meantime, are refusing to air at least one state GOP ad and perhaps two for stretching the facts even beyond the standards that presently govern election campaign TV ads. As if these problems weren't enough, Democratic Party officials are asking incumbent GOP Rep. John Shadegg embarrassing questions concerning election-season espionage after a credit card belonging to Shadegg's campaign manager was found under a desk in the offices of the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters.
Last tuesday Democratic Party Executive Director Maria Weeg filed complaints with the Arizona Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder requesting the swift and formal investigation of the Arizona Republican Party, one of its affiliated committees Arizonans for Public Safety, and the a contributor known at the time only as "SCA." It has since been reported that the acronym stands for "Sheriff's Command Association."
Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen says he accepted the funds from SCA (two donations, $80,000 and $25,000) under the assumption that SCA would provide him with the names and information of donors, but those names haven't been delivered. Arizona Democrats are accusing the GOP of using SCA to funnel donations to candidates while hiding the identity of the donors, a felony violation of campaign finance laws.
In addition, the Arizona Democratic Party alleges that SCA violated the law by failing to register as a political organization and failing to report its financial activities to the Arizona Secretary of State or the Maricopa County Recorder.
Pullen apparently also told the Arizona Capital Times that the SCA money was "set aside for county races" despite an Arizona statute that prohibits political entities from accepting earmarked contributions. Although the Arizona Republican Party only reported a $100 payment to Arizonans for Public Safety, Pullen also told the Arizona Capital Times that it transferred $78,000 of the SCA funds to Arizonans for Public Safety, which is also headed by Pullen, for county races.
The East Valley Tribune uncovered the identity of the person behind SCA, Division Captain Joel Fox of Sheriff Arpaio's Maricopa County office. Fox is listed as the contact person for SCA. Because Sheriff Arpaio's campaign could not legally collaborate with the ads run by Arizonans for Public Safety, this connection has further raised suspicions of illegal campaign activity. Sheriff Arpaio has emphatically denied any knowledge or collaboration with the group and the ad buy, calling it an "independent expenditure."
Despite the large amount of the donations and the high profile identity of Captain Fox, Pullen says that he "never even talked to [Fox] before I got the check. I didn't know him from Adam." Pullen says that he was unaware that Fox is a ranking member of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
Although the Arizona Republican Party now says it will return all $105,000 of the SCA donations, Secretary of State Jan Brewer is asking the Arizona Republican Party for a formal response to the complaint, along with a list of the SCA donors by October 31. The Arizona Elections Office has referred the case to a local law firm. The Arizona Democratic Party is asking the Arizona Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder to fine the GOP the requisite three times the amount of the funds received.
The bad press and possible financial set-back comes when the state party has already been suffering from long-term infighting and diminishing enthusiasm. According to the Democratic Party, the latest reports show the Arizona GOP with only $73,000 on hand in non-federal money, and the SCA donations were already being used to fund controversial television advertisements. One of those ads was the one "pulled" by the party after a local station refused to air it and another station questioned the ad's assertions.
Pullen said the ad was pulled after further research showed that the ad "wasn't quite accurate."
Republican party membership has also declined dramatically in Arizona over the last few years, with most defectors re-registering without party affiliation.
Republican consultant and former state Senator Stan Barnes says it is the my-way-or-the-highway attitude that is driving away Republican supporters. Others say it is the lack of an adherence to Republican principles. Pullen, a long time immigration-control activist, for example, took over the state party last year and has made it his goal to return the state party to its core principles.
Infighting within McCain's home-state party has been cut throat. Many party leaders, office holders, and key supporters have divided themselves into factions based on ideology and specific issues such as immigration, with party leaders calling other party leaders out. Indeed, much of the party infighting has centered around the issue of immigration, and many party members have cited John McCain's immigration policy as a primary reason for leaving the party. Barnes also notes that McCain is "reviled" by many in the Arizona Republican Party leadership.
The party has been in a civil war for the last few years, with a conservative grassroots arm pitted against libertarian-leaning Republicans, and Pullen has been at the center of the controversy as a conservative stalwart. Last year, some party leaders even voiced concern that Pullen would sabotage McCain's chances in the presidential election due to longstanding political differences on immigration and other conservative issues.
And just Monday evening, news broke that the Arizona Democratic Party found a credit card belonging to an Arizona Republican operative under a desk in the state headquarters of the Democratic Party.
The credit card was issued to Ryan Anderson, the re-election campaign manager of Republican Representative John Shadegg. Anderson claims that he went into the Democratic Party office to purchase an Obama bumper sticker. However, because all merchandise purchases are legally considered to be donations, a signed donation form is required each time an item is purchased.
No record exists of Ryan Anderson's purchase, but a "Bryan Anderson" whose address is a "near match" did fill out a donation form. According to the Democratic Party, each number in the street address is one digit off. Nevertheless, the Shadegg campaign sent an email to PolitickerAZ claiming that Anderson gave the card to a volunteer who stopped by the Democratic office to buy an Obama sticker.
Democratic Party officials believe that Anderson was the one who came to the office and that he purposely lied about his identity in order to access their office for information about the Bob Lord campaign for Shadegg's Congressional seat. Emily DeRose, spokesperson for the Arizona Democratic Party said,
Why would Anderson need to lie if he was just there to buy a bumper sticker? Why would a Republican campaign operative go to a Democratic office to buy bumper stickers when they're online? This story just doesn't hold water.
Arizona Democrats are asking Shadegg to fire Anderson.
As I was finishing this article, I received a robocall from Pullen asking for volunteers to help with phonebanking at the Arizona Republican Party headquarters. It smacks of desperation when the home state party of a presidential nominee is forced to robocall potential volunteers.
What's the word? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJBpL5ORWUo
I say it again: People in MN, Please vote for Elwyn Tinklenberg. Why?! Because Michelle Bachmann MUST GO!! Let's get medival over the Radical Right Wing Agenda and let's destroy the Michelle Bachmann menace once and for all!!!
http://www.actblue.com/page/nonewmccarthy
Bachmann Doubles Down: ‘Barack Obama’s Views Are Against America’By Matt Corley at 4:32 pm
On the defensive over her controversial Hardball appearance last Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told the St. Cloud Times yesterday that she regretted suggesting that Barack Obama held “anti-American” views. But at the same time Bachmann was apologizing for her remarks to traditional media outlets, Bachmann continued to cast aspersions on Obama’s patriotism in a series of appearances on right-wing radio shows.
On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday, Bachmann declared that “Barack Obama’s views are against America”:
BACHMANN: All I did on Chris Matthews is I questioned Chris Matthews and said, “look, if John McCain had friends like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger, you’d be all over him Chris, but you’ve laid off of Barack Obama.” And so, he was using the word “Anti-American” and I told Chris, what I question are Barack Obama’s views. Because Barack Obama’s views are against America. They won’t be good for our country.
On Mike Gallagher’s radio show this morning, Bachmann attacked Obama’s policy proposals, asking rhetorically, “Are they for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values?”:
BACHMANN: And they can’t take it because the point is what are Barack Obama’s policies? Are they for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values? And I’ll tell you what. Punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputing censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine and taking away the secret ballot from the worker has nothing to do with traditional American values. That’s why your listeners need to know. Otherwise the United States may be literally changed forever.
When Gallagher asked, “How is it not reasonable to wonder if that’s anti-American?,” Bachmann did not disagree with him. Instead, she simply replied, “what I did is touch a nerve, just like Joe the Plumber touched a nerve.” Listen to clips from both shows here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9-uhrEHuo
During her appearance on Gallagher’s show, Bachmann claimed that media scrutiny of her “anti-American” comments was a coordinated effort “to get my scalp on a platter.”
Transcript:
HEWITT: Now Michele, you’ve got a great organization, you’ve got a great great reputation and so, I assume your guys are not folding under the pressure that they’re rallying. Is that true?
BACHMANN: Yes, I mean, we’re working hard, but we just don’t have the financial resources that they have. I did all the work that I needed to. Laid all the foundation, but this will be like nothing we’ve ever seen. Plus, it’s the in kind donation that all the local media, local TV stations, they’re all running statements saying that I’m Joe McCarthy and that I am saying that Barack Obama is anti-American.
All I did on Chris Matthews is I questioned Chris Matthews and said, “look, if John McCain had friends like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger, you’d be all over him Chris, but you’ve laid off of Barack Obama.” And so, he was using the word “Anti-American” and I told Chris, what I question are Barack Obama’s views. Because Barack Obama’s views are against America. They won’t be good for our country. And so, anyway, it went on from there. And if people want to read the transcript, you know, I encourage them to please read the transcript. But all of a sudden this is out of control and the Speaker of the House made a visit here to Minnesota to make sure that I’m taken out.
[…]
BACHMANN: I touched something that’s off limits. I called Chris Matthews on the carpet and I said, “Chris, look, if John McCain had named as two of his three life mentors, Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.”
GALLAGHER: Right.
BACHMANN: “You would have been all over him. You have failed to do your due dilligence as the national media to check out Barack Obama.” And they can’t take it because the point is what are Barack Obama’s policies? Are they for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values? And I’ll tell you what. Punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputing censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine and taking away the secret ballot from the worker has nothing to do with traditional American values. That’s why your listeners need to know. Otherwise the United States may be literally changed forever. If Barack Obama becomes the next president, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, Harry “We lost the war” Reid, the head of the Senate. And then they have the power to appoint three more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. What are we going to do then?
GALLAGHER: Well, that’s precisely whats at play here. I mean, you know, I was watching CNN, Willie Brown from San Francisco talk about all, the agenda of pushing forth gay marriage, and you know, under a liberal Democrat president and Democrats in the Congress, I mean, as San Francisco goes, let’s face it, so goes the rest of the country. I mean we’ll see a different country than the one we recognize. And yet your comments were so mainstream. I mean, and that’s what’s fascinating. There’s nothing you said, even on the show, and I know that you’ve been now, people tried to corner you about your comments on the show. You didn’t say anything that isn’t what ordinary Americans are wondering about a presidential candidate who talks about spreading around the wealth and cavorting with a guy like Bill Ayers and a woman like Bernadine Dohrn who wants to overthrow capitalism. How is it not reasonable to wonder if that’s anti-American?
BACHMANN: And what I did is touch a nerve, just like Joe the Plumber touched a nerve by questioning Barack Obama’s punishing high tax rates.
BACHMANN: And then Barack Obama saying that he wants to spread the wealth around. That’s exactly what happened to me on Chris Matthews. I touched a nerve, which shows how ultra hyper-sensitive leftists are right now in this country. They know we’re a center-right country and they know Americans would shrink back if they truly come to understand how Obama will radically change this country. I mean they’re so afraid, Nancy Pelosi came here to Minnesota. She went in front of the media and she said to the Minnesota media that me, Michele Bachmann, has dishonored the position that I hold in Congress and that my statements discredit me as a person.
GALLAGHER: Wow.
BACHMANN: And then she got on her plane and left. I’ll tell you, right now…
GALLAGHER: She’s got a bigger plane, by the way, she didn’t like the plane she had originally. She demanded a bigger plane so she could fly around the country and discredit people like Michele Bachmann.
BACHMANN: And that’s why shows like the Today Show are banding together with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to get my scalp on a platter. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews alone have raised $1 million for my opponent just since last Friday.
GALLAGHER: You’re kidding me.
BACHMANN: No no, over a million dollars in online contributions.
BACHMANN: In that amount of time to take out my scalp. They’re serious about it. Because they can’t stand that I’m fighting them. And Nancy Pelosi also pledged to donate $1 million toward my opponent. So, $2 million have come in since Friday to make sure that I lose this election. That’s why I need. I’m desperate for help right now or else I lose.
