Here's an article worth reading by Hilary Rosen. She invites us to focus on the real reasons for opposing Palin and McCain. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rosen.palin/
Ms. Rosen asserts, "I don't care about how Sarah Palin or John McCain take care of their families. I care about how their policy choices affect my family and millions of other Americans." She then briefly lists their positions on several important issues, including health care, education, energy policy, government corruption, and family plannning.
Let's not allow the McCain campaign, the mainstream media, or the combination of the two to distract us from the issues that really matter to us and to the rest of the American people. The more I hear about this latest phase of the ever-evolving (read: ever-scrambling) McCain campaign, the more convinced I become that their secret code name for it is "Sex Sells."
Please allow me to re-post the following message since this site was under construction when I first posted it on August 31:
It's time to get real on the issue of pregnancy and life. Why allow the so-called pro-life activists to oversimplify this issue by pretending that it involves only one life? We've let them focus the discussion so narrowly on religious and scientific theories defining the exact moment at which a collection of cells becomes a person that we've lost sight of the undeniably real person, the billions of real people, who deserve at least SOME of the attention devoted to this issue.
The logical response to the question, "When does life begin?" should be: "When does a woman's life end?" When does a woman (or girl) lose the right to decide what happens to her own life, her own body - a right that belongs to everyone in this country except death-row inmates? Does it end when someone, maybe even a family member, rapes her? Is that when our legal system should automatically elevate a collection of cells, the result of a crime, the potential progeny of a criminal, above the victim of that crime? Is that when "justice" should sentence the victim to bear the criminal's child - to endure the pain, to assume the considerable health risks, to accept the prolonged and intensified emotional damage of not only remembering the assault but living through it for nine more months and then living with the consequences of the government's rape as well as the rapist's for the rest of her life? Can you really call that life?
That's Sarah Palin's idea of the right to life. That's her idea of justice. She is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest. We can hope that her extreme position does not prevail, that the next president (or the one after that) does not select Supreme Court Justices who support her view. Certainly, electing Barack Obama and Joe Biden would prevent that nightmare scenario for a long time.
Still, we need to work harder to bring reason and a broader, more realistic perspective to this issue. Although Palin's extreme view is not common enough to feel like an imminent threat - that is, if she does not become vice president or, worse yet, president - all women know that between violent rape and whole-hearted agreement to sex, with full awareness that it could result in pregnancy, lie infinite shades of gray. Most of us also know that the implications of pregnancy and child-bearing on the lives of the mother, the potential child, and any other children the mother may already have can be so varied, so complex, so heart-wrenching that the idea of a one-size-fits-all government decree, even with exceptions which would place the burden of proving in court personal tragedies such as incest or rape by a spouse, is absurd. It's far from the moral simplicity that "pro-life" or "right-to-life" suggest.
Women are biologically engineered to want to bear and protect children. When a woman and her doctor decide to override that powerful natural force, it's entirely likely that they know more than the government about the validity of the decision. If our government were to elevate the power of a rapist as far above the rights of an innocent woman as to force a woman to bear a rapist's child, that would clearly tip the balance of power dramatically in favor of men over women, not only in cases pertaining to pregnancy, but in general. Even if exceptions were allowed, the burden of proving the exceptions in court would render them useless in most cases. Criminalizing abortion would signal the government's lack of respect for women's judgment, for women's rights, for women.
If the issue were really about the right to life, about saving fragile lives, regardless of the sacrifices required from others, we would all be required to donate kidneys and other body parts. Millions are dying without them.
Now that we know which networks will be hosting debates and which anchors will be moderating them, let's suggest some great questions, LOTS of them. Post them on this site, so we can send our own and each other's. The more they get, the more likely some of our ideas will sink in.
A couple of debate questions based on recent "news":Senator McCain, you have advertised that you will "battle Big Oil," yet you promote off-shore drilling and oppose a windfall profits tax on Big Oil to provide rebates for American consumers. Senator, Exxon and other Big Oil companies are reporting record profits, why shouldn't they return some of their windfall to consumers who are paying $4 a gallon?Senator McCain, why don't you think it's a good idea to make sure we have a plan to safely and securely dispose of nuclear waste before we create more of it?
A couple of debate questions based on recent "news":
Please be as kind and courteous as the opposition is rude and crotchety. You'll catch more flies with honey.
Obama and McCain may be even in the polls, but they're not even when it comes to the number of Americans whose interests they're proposing to serve.
The reason we're so frustrated about losing elections is not that our interests are different from the majority's interests. We're not frustrated because we're outnumbered - quite the opposite. We're frustrated because the opposition consistently confuses, misleads, and distracts people into voting against their own best interests.
The solution is not to stoop to their level. We don't need to confuse, mislead, or distract people to convince them to do the right thing. We need to EDUCATE. We need to convince people of what is at stake, and we need to present them with the facts, with the choices they really have - point-by-point, issue-by-issue, Obama wants this. / McCain wants that.
We can use the Republicans' tactics against them by pointing out that while we are focusing on the issues, they are attempting to confuse, mislead, and distract voters. Independent fact checkers will back us up. Over time, this will make a difference.
We can do this.We have three months.We have the financial resources.We have the intellectual resources.We have the creative resources.We have the human resources.
We have the truth on our side.There's nothing intrinsically boring or unappealing about the truth.There's no reason we can't sell the truth as effectively as they can sell lies.
The best response to McCain's string of bizarre attack ads is to focus on the issues and to point out that McCain doesn't want us to focus on the issues.
Let everyone else try to sort out whether there are code words or hidden messages in these stupid ads. There's no question that they are not about McCain or his plans for leading our country. It's also fairly easy to prove that the ads are designed to confuse, mislead, and distract voters, not to inform us.
So why doesn't McCain want voters to be well-informed or to focus on the issues?
Hmmm.
Let's start a massive campaign to educate people on critical thinking skills. I know that doesn't sound exciting, so please help me think of a catchier title for it.
The exciting part would be that instead of appearing to push our agenda, push our candidate, we would be showing our confidence in the truth. We want voters to become well-informed, to use their heads, to make decisions in their own best interests and in the country's best interests.
Our first mission: How to evaluate sources of information.
Senator McCain is right not to negotiate with our enemies.
With his sense of "humor" - the cigarette quip, the "bomb Iran" ditty -
with his inability to keep the facts straight - Sunnis vs. Shiites, Czechoslovakia -
with his temper - calling his wife the c-word in public -
he definitely should not be talking to representatives of hostile governments.
Now if he would just agree not to talk to our allies . . .
With his sense of "humor" - the cigarette quip and "bomb Iran" ditty -
with his inability to keep the facts straight - Sunnis vs. Shiites -
David Brooks' June 20 column, "The Two Obamas," appeared in my local paper today under the headline, "For a lesson on politics, see 'Fast Eddie Obama.'" The editorial tries to make Obama sound like a con artist. In case you haven't already read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In case you want to respond: http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html
Here's my response:
Esteemed Mr. Brooks,The Bush campaign didn't swift boat John Kerry. A 527 did it. In August. If you expect Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Defense Contractors, Big fill-in-the-blank to twiddle their thumbs while Obama defeats McCain - oh, wait a minute, of course you don't. Now who's Machiavellian? Could it be the conservative columnist with a reputation for being reasonable who managed to squeeze every possible attack on Obama into one column under the guise that Republicans have underestimated the opposition? Academic liberal, flag pins, wife "isn't proud," pastor "damned," throwing people under trucks (I thought it was supposed to be buses), voting "present" - my goodness, you've covered a lot of bases. You do know that a "present" vote in the Illinois Legislature indicates that a bill is worth pursuing but needs more work and that Obama's record of legislative accomplishment in the Illinois Legislature is quite impressive, even courageous? Of course you do, as do most educated people with any interest in this election, but we're not your target audience, are we?John McCain signed up for public financing, took out a loan against expected public funds, spent it, tried to back out of public financing, ignored a legal notice that he may not be able to back out, and continues to raise and spend funds in excess of the legal limit and quite possibly against the law. Hmm. McCain sounds like someone the Obama campaign can trust to rein in the RNC and Republican-backed 527s, who are guaranteed to attack Obama. Worse yet, the media has repeated McCain's attack on Obama's public finance decision ad nauseam, but has rarely bothered to mention McCain's own public financing decisions. Does that sound like a climate in which Obama should limit his ability to defend himself?A large part of the purpose of public financing is to prevent small groups with big money from disproportionately influencing the political process. Despite your slick editorial, it's clear that Obama's decision to accept funds from more than 1.7 million Americans serves the purpose of public financing better than a system that ties the candidates' hands, while allowing the national parties, 527s, and the media itself to do the dirty work.You're right. Obama isn't naive. Nor are many of his supporters. Sorry to disappoint you.Respectfully,Kelly Thomas
Media Matters does a great job of pointing out errors, inconsistencies, and imbalance in reports on the campaign finance issue. The entire June 20 article appears in the extended post below. Highlights include:
For more details, read the extended post below. For a quick retort, remember:
The Bush campaign didn't swift-boat John Kerry. A 527 did it.McCain was in the public finance system before he TRIED to back out of it...by the way, has he been prosecuted for that yet?
The Bush campaign didn't swift-boat John Kerry. A 527 did it.
McCain was in the public finance system before he TRIED to back out of it...by the way, has he been prosecuted for that yet?
The ignorance of all these people condemning Obama's public financing decision astounds me.
Don't they know:
So how is it hypocritical to recognize those facts and make a decision that best upholds the principles of public financing and best serves the interests of the American people?
I have just responded to an infuriating public financing article on the front page of my local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee.
The one-sided article asserts that Obama opted out of public financing because he "is hoping to guarantee himself a huge financial advantage over Republican John McCain" and that his "decision was undoubtedly motivated by his fundraising prowess." The article quotes McCain's response at length, expands on McCain's claim that rejecting public financing is hypocritical and dishonest, and even blames Obama for the expected demise of the public finance system. The only pitiful attempt at balance is Obama's public statement printed in a small, dark font on a dark background in a narrow strip along the edge of page A15, where the article concludes. The article itself has no balance at all. It never mentions 527s, the RNC, swift boat attacks, or any of the other items that really motivated Obama's decision.
In case anyone else wants to respond, here's the article: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1027619.html
and here's the link for letters: http://www.sacbee.com/326/story/19629.html
My letter to the editor, squeezed by the 200-word limit, is in the extended post.
I'm going to contribute to the campaign now. It's still our best response.
Basing the allocation of any delegates on the results of the invalid January primaries would be completely unfair. It's a bait and switch. Even using a well-designed poll would be a more defensible approach.
However, since it looks as though the committee probably is going to use the invalid primaries to come up with an allocation, and since it looks as though Clinton is going to get some kind of advantage from this process, I propose the following solution for Michigan:
Give Clinton the delegates she would have won, MINUS the delegates associated with the number of votes cast for "Uncommitted." The Clinton campaign may be able to argue that it's not clear whether "uncommitted" voters intended to vote for Obama, but it is definitely clear that they intentended to vote AGAINST Clinton.
Then, reduce the remaining delegates by half as a penalty for not following the rules.
This should placate those who say Obama should be gracious since he will win anyway, but it would not move the goal posts quite as much since the total number of delegates would be increased only by the number Clinton ends up with after subtracting the "Uncommitted" proportion and halving the rest.
It wouldn't please Clinton, but what would?
The Clinton campaign has announced its opposition to the 69-59 Michigan compromise:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awDl.IEqNQFA&refer=us
I have to admit I'm glad they did. It was a generous offer for Clinton, giving her 10 more Michigan delegates than Obama and all those lovely Michigan superdelegates (I think). Obama could have argued that it rewards Clinton (and Michigan) for breaking the rules and doesn't necessarily reflect the number of delegates he could have won in a fair contest, yet it would have seemed ungracious for him to deny her those delegates, given the current state of the race. Now I guess he doesn't have to appear ungracious or accept a less-than-fair offer. And as an added bonus, Clinton's response . . . reflects back on her.
This article describing Senator Obama's visit to the House gave me chills. It suddenly seemed so real.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/08/obamamania_hits_the_house_floo.html
From my local paper, the Sacramento Bee:
Spread the Word
The Obama campaign has reached its goal of 1.5 million donors by May 6.
1,500,000 Americans own a piece of the Obama campaign.
The media doesn't seem to be aware of this amazing accomplishment. Please spread the word.
