As most people have heard, two Canadian DJs engaged Gov. Sarah Palin in a prank call on Saturday Nov 1, 2008. One of them posed as French President Nicholas Sarkozy. Gov. Palin spoke with them for about 6 minutes. When I heard the recording of the call I immediately recognized that "President Sarkozy" had a French Canadian accent. My advantage is that I was born in Montréal and lived there until I was 10. (I have been an American citizen for about 18 years.) (Here is THE CALL and here is THE TRANSCRIPT in Canada's national newspaper.)
Palin (and her staff) did not recognize the fact that the accent was completely wrong either during the call or the long process it took the DJs to convince her staff to let them speak with her. I'm sure there were more clues in the run-up to the actual conversation but Palin's staff didn't clue in. They even asked how to spell "Sarkozy."
But what struck me as even more odd, besides the obvious sexual references, was the fact that someone who has touted her dealings with Canada as part of her foreign affairs experience did not know the name of Canada's prime minister. This is especially curious in light of the fact that Stephen Harper is a fellow religious conservative. (By the way the major US TV networks failed to stress this major discrepancy.)
Here is a quote from the Globe and Mail that reveals the people about whom Palin had no clue.
In it, Mr. Audette - as President Sarkozy - alluded to his "special American adviser Johnny Hallyday" (better known as a French rock 'n' roll singer), "the prime minister of Canada Stef Carse," (better known as a Québécois country and western singer who recorded Achy Breaky Heart) and the "prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Richard Z. Sirois," (better known as a popular Québécois comedian). Ms. Palin never seemed to know the difference.
One of the DJs stated that he couldn't believe how long Ms. Palin seemed to be taken in by the prank. "She never, never suspected anything," Mr. Trudel said. "It was a little bit frightening."
In my view it's much more than a little frightening. It's a demonstration of how ignorant Gov. Palin is and how ill prepared she is to be vice president.
There has been no evidence of intellectual curiosity on her part. The problems we face demand leadership that is willing to consider solutions from all quarters that are backed up by evidence. This takes intellectual curosity and more importantly intellectual ability. Neither Palin or, for that matter, John McCain demonstrate either. This alone disqualifies them from gaining the Oval Office.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned with Sen. McCain yesterday [October 31, 2008]. Of course they talked about Sen. Obama being a socialist who wants to "redistribute the wealth," as has been done repeatedly recently. The media did not make note of the fact that in early October Schwarzenegger was talking about getting a $7 billion loan from the federal government to cover California's budget shortfall. The shortfall would have left California unable to pay teachers and other state employees. In other words California would have been essentially bankrupt.
California ended up figuring out a way to close their budget shortfall without getting federal help. But Gov. Schwarzenegger didn't hesitate to think about asking for the rest of the country to spread some of their wealth towards California.
Does this make Gov. Schwarzenegger a socialist, and if so how can McCain pal around with a known socialist?
Maybe Schwarzenegger is really a pragmatist (aka liberal) who went out as a Republican for Halloween.
David Broder wrote an op-ed entitled What We've Learned About John McCain in today's Washington Post [Thursday, October 30, 2008].
Here is the letter I wrote in reply:
Dear Mr. Broder,What have we learned about John McCain? Your own words state that John McCain has “limited interest in, and capacity for, the organization and management of large enterprises.” And which enterprise has the largest budget and workforce in the world? Why the US Federal government of course. It’s a rather strange comment about the candidate who complains nonstop that Sen. Obama is not ready to lead.Furthermore, choosing the person to be vice presidential running mate is the most important decision any presidential candidate can make. John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin has been decried by pundits and polls alike as being a huge mistake. Even McCain insiders are beginning to jump off the Palin snow machine. Yet you end your op-ed by stating that, “And the country will have to hope this campaign has honed his leadership skills.” Most of us have another wish, namely hope that he does not die in office should he win.
George Will was more forthright in his negative analysis about McCain calling him John the Careless in the same edition of the Post. Although in general I'm no fan of George Will, I do appreciate the fact that he stands by the Constitution. It's a document that Gov. Palin needs to put at the top of her reading list if she happens to become vice president, or if she thinks she could ever be president one day given that the McCain ticket loses.
Yet it is Will's defense of American's First Amendment rights to support the candidate of their choosing that garners my most loud applause. Sen. Obama spent 12 years teaching constitutional law. Perhaps that experience is part of what led him to trust the American system enough to reject public money in favor of giving every American a chance to support his bid. Those who do not want to see Sen. Obama become president should at least consider that their tax dollars did not do anything to put him in office should he win. The same cannot be said of those taxpayers who did not want to have their dollars go towards helping John McCain but had no choice in the matter.
I was listening to CNN this afternoon (Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008) when the anchor gave a reason for not accepting Sen. Obama's 30-minute message. The claim was that since they are a news organization it wasn't fair to agree to air the message. Then an ad came on for Larry King Live right after this claim. The ad stated that Sen. McCain would be on at 9:00 PM to give his take on Sen. Obama's message.
So on the one hand they wouldn't let the Obama campaign buy a 30-minute time slot, and on the other CNN will provide Sen. McCain with free time to discuss the message they wouldn't carry. Some impartial news organization! Gee I think I'll watch Fox News.
The Republicans have charged the Obama campaign with being socialist because of the comment that Sen. Obama made to "Joe The Plumber." One Florida TV anchor (Barbara West) even brought up Karl Marx (her husband is a Republican strategist) in a sateliite interview with Sen. Biden.
Since the 16th amendment passed in 1913 we have had a progressive income tax that does indeed "distribute" a portion of the wealth:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Federal Income tax funds the Federal budget—at least the portion that isn't deficit. Some of the money goes to provide the safety net in this country. Examples are Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Both cover many people without means. And then there is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which was started under the Reagan Administration. In 1986 Reagan called the EITC, “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” If Reagan is McCain's hero as he had said he is, then would he call Ronald Reagan a socialist?So it's complete hogwash to label Sen. Obama a socialist since he didn't invent any of these systems.
But if we want to talk about distributing the wealth then let's talk about the Iraq War launched by a Republican president with whom John McCain agreed. How many times did George W. Bush go to Congress with his hat in hand asking for billions and billions of dollars in emergency spending to fund the war? Many of those dollars went into the coffers of companies that back Republicans and that won no-bid contracts. Blackwater is a good example. To make fiscal matters worse these dollars were not included in the budget.
In addition, there had been a redistribution of wealth under Republican rule: the rich have become richer and the poor poorer.
The bottom line it's totally disingenuous for the McCain-Palin campaign to label Sen. Obama a socialist.
On tonight's Real Time with Bill Maher [Friday, October 17, 2008] Sarah and Todd Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) received much-needed attention in light of the McCain's campaign use of robocalls linking Sen. Obama with terrorism.
The founder of the AIP, Joe Vogler who died in 1993 in mysterious circumstances had stated, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." He also stated, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." At the time that Vogler died, he was scheduled to give a speech being sponsored by the Government of Iran at the United Nations on Alaska Independence. Vogler got his wish. He and his wife are buried in Dawson, Yukon Territory, Canada.So why does the mainstream media focus so much on Obama's connection with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and almost totally ignore the fact that the Palins have had such a clear relationship to a secessionist party? Todd Palin was a member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002. Gov. Palin actually gave a welcoming speech to the AIP’s 2008 convention in June 2008. The Palin’s relationship to the AIP is today’s news while Bill Ayers is yesterday’s. In fact it’s so much in the past that Sen. Obama was 8 years old when Bill Ayers was at the height of his radical activities. We should remember that those activities were directed at the Vietnam War. While many people, including me, know that violence, whether organized warfare or domestic terrorism, is never the answer, many more (also including me) know that the Vietnam War was a huge mistake then, as the Iraq War is today. The sad difference is that 14 times more Americans died in Vietnam. We should also remember that it was the outpouring of public sentiment, violent and otherwise, that helped end the war. Bill Ayers intentions were appropriate for the time but his actions were not.The New York Times could not find any kind of a close connection between Sen. Obama and Bill Ayers. Sen. Obama has stated that the acts that Bill Ayers perpetrated were despicable a number of time times. He clearly stated that he does not now or at any time in the past condone Ayers’ terrorist activities. That should be the end of it.But the Republican lie machine is in full swing and won’t let it die. So we need to raise our collective voices to let them know we won’t let them get away with it, not this time.And if they persist we need to use our media, the Internet, to let Americans know that people who live in glass houses should not throw bricks, meaning that the Palin’s association with the Alaska Independence Party will be receiving increased scrutiny from now until Nov 4th.
The Bill Ayers story continues because the Republicans obviously do not want to focus on their association with the causes of the failing economy. The McCain-Palin campaign has a TV ad that states that Sen. Obama lied about his association with Bill Ayers. Gov. Palin goes so far to say that Ayers and Obama are "pals."
FactCheck has a different take:
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false. In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false. In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.
Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.
Our democracy grants Democrats and Republicans the right to disagree on fundamental issues such as abortion and gay rights, but the McCain-Palin claims have crossed the line.
It's absolutely remarkable that John McCain, a sitting US Senator basically says that Barack Obama another sitting US Senator is at best a terrorist sympathizer or at worst actually a terrorist himself. Where is the outrage from the rest of Congress, especially the Senate? And what about the other 49 governors? How can they be silent about fellow Gov. Palin’s claims that Sen. Obama “pals” around with a terrorist?The character assassination tactic (it’s not a strategy) that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are using is clearly coded to incite racial bias against Sen. Obama. Chris Matthews of MSNBC has repeatedly said on Hardball that the Republicans are trying to paint Obama as “mysterious” and that they are “de-Americanizing” him. One radio host (WMAL 630 in Washington, DC) went so far to state in reply to CNN’s Don Lemon’s question about the “Keating 5” that Keating was only a banker. Yeah some banker! Ask all those people who lost their money in the Saving and Loan crisis what they thought of Charles Keating. From their standpoint he was an economic terrorist.Sadly, this tactic could provoke someone to take a potshot at Sen. Obama. If God forbid he was killed, think what would happen next. The 1968 riots would probably look like a bunch of block parties in comparison. Some right-wing Republicans have tried to camouflage the implicit hate speech that McCain and Palin are using by saying that if matters were reversed there would be no compunction about the Democrats using it against McCain. The problem is that they conveniently ignore the centuries of absolutely vile discrimination that African-Americans suffered. No thinking person would think it’s an apples to oranges comparison.Keep in mind that the Atwater-Rove philosophy that winning at any cost justifies the means used is what the market manipulators used to get us into the current financial mess.John McCain once said that he would “rather lose the election than lose the war.” By his actions is he now saying that he would rather win the election and lose the country? So much for “Country First.”
The McCain campaign continually promotes the idea that Sen. Obama lacks the experience and judgment to be president. On tonight’s Real Time With Bill Maher, Wall Street Journal writer Steve Moore negatively compared Obama’s experience with that of Sarah Palin.Hmm, let’s see. Sen. Obama manages a campaign that has raised the most amount of money in any presidential election such that he has not had to take public money. Not taking public money for the first time in a presidential election is by itself an accomplishment that has not received the notice it's due. But Sen. McCain took public money - couldn't that be called an earmark that he is so fond of speaking about? It certainly is taxpayer's money taken without regard to how taxpayer's regard Sen. McCain.
In any event, Sen. Obama has competed successfully on a national level for almost two years to win the Democratic Party nomination. And he has built a countrywide political organization that is the most impressive in history. Seems to me he has proven himself way beyond anything that the governor of a state with a total population of 670,000 and that gets a huge windfall from oil and gas. Oh and let’s not forget that Alaska gets more money from the federal government than any other state. Can’t be that difficult a place to run as proven by the fact that Gov. Palin couldn’t name anything she reads for information, or a Supreme Court ruling beyond Roe v. Wade.
The Alaskan legislature has spoken and the bipartisan commission (download the 263 page report) finds that Gov. Sarah Palin abuse of power was contributory to the firing of the Alaskan public safety commissioner. She apparently did not break the law since the person fired served at the will of the Governor and the firing procedure, as dictated by Alaska law, was properly followed. However, according to the report, she did break the public trust, especially in allowing her husband to interfere so much in state affairs regarding the issue.Quite something coming from a person who has been painting Sen. Obama as untrustworthy, and the campaign that has co-opted the reform mantra. Sounds like politics of old to this writer. McCain-Palin already have a scandal andwe haven't even reached Nov 4th. Can you spell Bush?
Going forward the McCain camp should have a more difficult time equating Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, the distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois as having anything to do with terrorism. Obama first served with Ayers on the board of an educational non-profit in 1995. As is well known, Ayers was a domestic terrorist in the 1960s and 70s. At the time that Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground Sen. Obama was 8 years old. Enough said.Not only have the recent economic events put Reaganomics out of business, but hopefully Obama will get elected and dismantle Atwater-Rove style politics.
This report could be another nail in the politics of hate and division.
At the 2nd Presidential Debate, on Tuesday, Oct 7, 2008, John McCain let slip the brilliant idea that the feds should buy up the sub prime mortgages. Aside from the mechanics of how that would be managed, it's not brilliant but batty. Can you say "erratic?"Taking these mortgages off the books of the banks that hold them will force the banks to write them off. This means they will convert paper losses into actual losses. The same thing happens when you sell in a panic a stock that has declined below what you paid for it. Until you sell you have a loss on paper – once you sell you have a real loss. Any bank forced to do this would actually hurt itself because its capital reserves would be reduced. In other words the net worth of the bank would shrink and the bank’s ability to get money through borrowing would shrink. Result the bank would either fail, or would require the feds to step in to lend it money if it was felt it had to be saved.This would be a double whammy for we taxpayers. We would own the properties, which are worth less and cannot easily be sold (illiquid assets), and we could, in some situations, pony up additional billions to save the bank.It would be far better to use the $700 billion to inject money (capital) directly into the banks and do it sooner than later. And the banks that are chosen should be ones that agree by law to lend the money to businesses that create jobs. The public’s money should not be awarded to debt-holders who were happy with high returns when all was going well, and who would now like to have we taxpayers pick up the tab for their bad financial decisions. There is the issue of dilution of ownership when the government buys a stake in any company. In buying the stake the government (we taxpayers) get a percentage of the company. That happened when the feds loaned AIG the money. The AIG shareholders who owned stock before the loan saw the percentage of their ownership go down after. This is called dilution. There has been a lot of concern about dilution among the shareholders, especially institutions that own large chunks of stock in the affected financial comapnies. The way I look at this is simple. I would rather have my investment diluted downwards than have the company fail altogether and my stock become worthless.I’m not an economist (see this article), yet I have a reasonable understanding of what’s happening in the financial markets. But John McCain’s view of the stock and credit market problem seems to reveal his inability to grasp even simple financial concepts. Or he has bad advisers. Or he simply wants to win at any cost, which is why he “unveiled” his cockamamie one-sentence plan during the debate. Or perhaps it’s all three.The end result is that he is hardly the “cool hand on the tiller” that he claims he is. Can you say “economic terrorist?”
Barack Obama is the obvious "true steady hand on the [financial] tiller" (surprising that a navy man like McCain couldn't even get the saying right) and that's why he is ahead in the polls.
The 2008 Financial Crisis
Harold Myerson in the Oct 6, 2008 edition of the Washington Post sets the stage very clearly what kind of reformer John McCain has been and would be if his pal and close adviser, Phil Gramn, is any indication. According to Myerson, Republican Gramn was instrumental as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in getting a provision attached to an omnibus spending bill on Dec 15, 2000 that really set the stage for the credit market meltdown that is underpinning the current financial crisis. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) prohibited government regulation of credit default swaps. These are the insurance products, most often in the form of derivatives that expanded to $62 trillion when the housing market was hot. Although Myerson does not say so, the lack of regulation has an implicit role in the leverage that brought down Lehman Brothers. Myerson also states that the CFMA prohibited regulation of the energy-trading market. This enabled Enron to so manipulate the energy market that it was able to hold the state of California hostage and outsmart itself into bankruptcy. Unlike Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright, McCain’s relationship with Phil Gramn is a close one. Myerson clearly states, “…that Gramm's relationship to McCain is not comparable to the relationships that Ayers or Wright have with Obama. The idea that either Ayers or Wright would have any impact on the workings of an Obama administration is nonsensical. But Gramm and McCain do have an enduring political and economic alliance [emphasis mine]. McCain chaired Gramm's short-lived presidential campaign in 1996; Gramm is co-chair of McCain's current effort. McCain has not repudiated reports that Gramm is on the shortlist to become Treasury secretary if McCain is elected, even after Gramm labeled America ‘a nation of whiners.’”In relation to the presidential debate on Oct, 7, 2008, when McCain may try to assassinate Obama’s character by inappropriately tying him to Bill Ayers and terrorists, Myerson’s last sentence sums it up neatly, “If pressed, though, he [Obama] can mention that it is McCain's senior economic adviser who has diminished American solvency and power beyond the wildest dreams of anti-American terrorists.
If McCain does try to malign Barack during the debate, my guess is that it will backfire as has already started because of Palin’s disgusting accusation concerning Sen. Obama and terrorists. The electoral avalanche in Obama’s favor that is starting to happen could only accelerate. The Republicans may finally learn that when there are real problems facing the country the politics of mean doesn’t play in Peoria.
"Under its license agreement with the state, TransCanada will get a $500 million subsidy in return for seeking federal regulatory approval for the project and finding customers for the pipeline. The license doesn't guarantee construction of the project [emphasis mine]."
So Gov. Palin is going around the country touting her convictions as a fiscal conservative. She may have in fact cut earmarks that the State of Alaska takes from the federal government. But she sure doesn’t sound like a fiscal conservative to me. What it does sound like is the lack of oversight that the Republicans are famous for and that, to a large part, got us into the economic mess we’re currently in.
The fact that it's a Canadian company and part of the pipeline will go through Canada also begs the question of proper oversight, which this decision does not seem on the surface to support.
John McCain calls for transparency. He ought to start with his running mate so we know that the half billion is being well spent, and conidering the overall impact, proper safeguards are in place.
