Organizing for America | Pediatric Nurses for Obama

Pediatric Nurses for Obama

Pediatric Nurses in support of Senator Obama, particularly his healthcare plan and proposed expansion of coverage for children.

Poll Position

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Oct 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

It's looking good according to the newest polls from the battlegrounds! But like the song says "...you can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands when everybody's fighting for their promised land." With this in mind, we can never underestimate the power of the republican disenfrancizing machine. VIGILANCE!!!

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann
*** Swing states swinging to Obama: Most of the national polls -- including our NBC/WSJ survey -- are now showing Obama with a double-digit national lead. And here come a slew of brand-new state polls that also suggest Obama is in command of this presidential contest. The University of Wisconsin’s Big Ten Battleground polls have Obama up 10 points in Indiana (51%-41%), 13 points in Iowa (52%-39%), 22 in Michigan (58%-36%), 19 in Minnesota (57%-38%), 12 in Ohio (53%-41%), 11 in Pennsylvania (52%-41%), 13 in Wisconsin (53%-40%), and nearly 30 in Obama’s home state of Illinois (61%-32%). Meanwhile, there are new Quinnipiac surveys that show Obama up five points in Florida (49%-44%), 14 in Ohio (52%-38%), and 13 in Pennsylvania (53%-40%). And finally, new CNN/Time surveys find Obama ahead by five points among likely voters in Nevada (51%-46%), four points in North Carolina (51%-47%), four in Ohio (50%-46%), and 10 points in Virginia (54%-44%). The lone state survey that shows McCain ahead: CNN/Time’s West Virginia poll, where McCain’s nine (53%-44%).

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

John McCain is an Opportunistic Coward

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 25th, 2008 at 1:12 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

So now the sky is falling? So now we are in Crisis? What happened to "fundamentally sound"? It is so obvious that McCain is grandstanding for reasons of political expediance, while all the while trying to frame himself as above the fray. I'm sorry to tell you this Johnny, but everyone knows that you are trying to call a time out because you are dropping in the polls like a turd swirling down the toilet. What a cowardly move; ducking out of the debate and using a national crisis for cover. And now they are talking about "delaying" the VP debate. They can hear Palin heaving a sigh of relief all the way in Russia! (cuz she lives in Alaska) I honestly dont think our country can survive another 4-8 years of this these reptilian bastards who will twist, and shape-shift, and manipulate the American people in their never ending quest for absolute power. Country First my ass

September 25, 2008McCain camp to propose postponing VP debatePosted: 10:44 AM ET
From CNN Correspondent Dana Bash

(CNN) — McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.

In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.

Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on as planned — but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the Republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there's no deal on the bailout.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

FactChecking…’The View’?

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 13th, 2008 at 11:36 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

When the chat on The View turned to Palin’s record on earmarks McCain got it wrong:

Barbara Walters: She also took some earmark spending.
Joy Behar: A lot.
McCain: Well, not as governor she didn’t.

McCain’s wrong here. It’s true she scaled back the state’s federal spending requests within the last two years. But she didn’t eliminate them. She sent a letter on her gubernatorial stationery with $197 million in earmark requests, directly contradicting McCain’s statement. Palin writes:

Palin:In preparing these requests, the State has been mindful of congressional concerned about budget deficits and earmarks. Accordingly, the total number of requests has been reduced significantly from previous years. Approximately two-thirds of the requests involve programs that have been funded previously.

It’s clear Palin knew the gravy train was slowing (in large part because McCain was applying the brakes), but that didn’t stop her from sending the nearly $200 million request (nearly $30 per Alaskan, according to the 2006 Census Bureau population estimates). And we’ve already reported that Palin’s history with earmarks dates back to her time as mayor of Wasilla.

McCain would have been on more solid ground if he were informing his View-ership of his own earmark-busting record. The Arizona senator’s requests have amounted to a big, fat zero. But Palin’s still asking for pork by the barrel, even if the barrels have been downsized.

Posted under FactCheck.org, John McCain, Presidential Election 2008, Sarah Palin

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

FactChecking McCain

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

September 5, 2008He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.SummaryWe checked the accuracy of McCain’s speech accepting the Republican nomination and noted the following:

McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.
McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
McCain said oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.
He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.
He called for "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.
He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.

AnalysisSen. John McCain's acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul on Sept. 4 was couched more in generalities than in specifics, offering fewer factual claims to check than we found in other speeches to the gathering. But we found some instances where the nominee strained the truth.

Insurance Claims

McCain mischaracterized Obama’s health care plan:

McCain: His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

The claim that “small businesses” would have to “cut jobs, reduce wages,” runs counter to Obama’s actual proposal. Obama’s plan would require businesses to contribute to the cost of insurance for employees or pay some unspecified amount into a new public plan. But his proposal specifically says, “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.” And it offers additional help to small businesses that want to provide health care in the form of a refundable tax credit of up to half the cost of premiums. We’ll note that neither man has defined what exactly a “small business” is.

Furthermore, Obama’s plan wouldn’t “force” families into a “government-run health care system.” His plan mandates that children have coverage; there’s no mandate for adults. People can keep the health insurance they have now or chose from private plans, or opt for a new public plan that will offer coverage similar to what members of Congress have. Obama would also expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. His plan certainly expands government-offered insurance – and McCain’s doesn’t – but it’s not a solely government-run plan, as McCain implied. And if Obama's public plan turns out to be similar to what federal employees have, as he says it would be, we're not sure how "a bureaucrat" would stand "between you and your doctor." The possible exception would be persons covered by Medicaid or SCHIP.

McCain also made this boast:

McCain: My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance.

Fair enough. But McCain's plan wouldn't do nearly as well as Obama's. One comparison, by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, finds Obama’s would reduce the uninsured by 18 million people in its first year, compared with a 1 million reduction under McCain’s plan. TPC made various assumptions about the plans to fill in details each proposal lacks, so those numbers aren’t definitive. We await more comparisons from other experts.

Oily Words

McCain attacked Obama for supporting "corporate welfare" for oil companies:

McCain: [I]nstead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies.

The bill McCain is talking about here is the 2005 energy bill, which actually raised taxes on the oil industry a little bit overall – by about $300 million, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Meanwhile, McCain himself proposes to cut the corporate rate for all companies – oil included – and that would result in an estimated $4 billion cut for the five largest U.S.-based oil companies, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Obama, on the other hand, is promising that he'll strip oil companies of "tax breaks" to the tune of an amount yet to be determined.

It's true that Obama voted for the 2005 bill. He said he favored the $5.8 billion (over 11 years) that it contained in tax incentives for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels. McCain voted against it on the grounds that the $2.6 billion it contained for oil and gas incentives was too much, even though the bill also took away $2.9 billion from the industry, for a net tax increase of $300 million. Describing such a complex measure as "corporate welfare" is misleading.

More Oily Words

We found other exaggerations in McCain’s claims about his plan for energy independence:

McCain: We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much.

In fact, the U.S. doesn't pay nearly that much for oil from hostile nations. According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. imported 4.9 billion barrels of oil in 2007. At today’s prices, that works out to about $536 billion, still a hefty chunk of change, but considerably less than $700 billion. More important, that's what we pay to all exporting nations, not just those that “don’t like us very much.” We note that 32 percent of U.S. oil imports came from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

Just Wind

McCain also made sweeping claims about green energy that aren't actually backed up by his policy proposals:

McCain: We will attack the problem on every front. ...We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

McCain has been quite specific about his proposals to clear the way for building 45 new nuclear power plants, opening offshore areas to oil drilling and spending $2 billion a year for so-called "clean coal" technology. He has also proposed a $300 million prize for developing the first practical plug-in electric car, although General Motors already is working on that and is aiming for delivery of the Chevrolet Volt by 2010, prize or no prize. McCain has also proposed a $5,000 tax credit for consumers who purchase zero emission vehicles

But when it comes to power from wind and tide, McCain's words are blowing in the breeze. His energy plan, which he calls the Lexington Project, proposes no new spending for renewable energy programs. Instead, he proposes to "rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits," but hasn't said what he means by that. As we’ve written before, spokespeople for the wind and solar industries are unsure what this actually means. Finally, we’ll note that McCain himself told supporters at a July town hall meeting that he doesn’t think that renewable energy is likely to be "as much of the solution as some people think." Perhaps not, but if McCain is right his own words are contributing to the public misperception.

Pig in a Poke

McCain repeated his vague promise to make spending cuts:

McCain: Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit.

McCain has not said which programs he considers to be "failed programs." He thus makes the spending cuts sound less painful than they will be should he fulfill his previously stated promise to balance the federal budget by 2013 while also making all Bush tax cuts permanent and adding new cuts of his own. McCain repeated his promise to eliminate "earmarks" from federal spending bills, saying "the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it." That drew applause, but the fact is that earmarks amount to only $16.9 billion in the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Meanwhile, the deficit is expected to be more than $200 billion in 2009. And McCain's tax cuts will add billions more to future deficits unless offset by spending cuts, which he so far has not been willing to identify. What would he cut?

A McCain adviser, former CBO chairman Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has said that McCain "will provide the leadership to achieve bipartisan spending restraint" and "will perform a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government" to find programs to cut or eliminate. But that, of course, will come after people have cast their votes.

Trade Talk

McCain said, “I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them."

McCain may be alluding to Obama’s threat earlier this year to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if Mexico and Canada won't open the deal to renegotiation. Obama said at a Democratic primary debate in Cleveland in February:

Obama, Feb. 26: I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.

But that's far from a threat to "close" markets to U.S. exports.

An expert from a pro-trade group agrees. “It's a stretch to take the heated comment from the Cleveland debate to pull out of NAFTA if it wasn't revised as indicative of a protectionist policy,” Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told FactCheck.org. “In any event, the position on NAFTA has since been clarified."

In fact, Obama has said he thinks it's unwise to repeal the trade deal, because to do so "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains." And in a June interview with Fortune magazine, he stated that he didn’t plan on pulling out of NAFTA. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.

It's true that McCain has been a stronger advocate of free trade agreements than Obama, who supported the trade deal with Oman in 2006 and one with Peru in 2007 but opposed the one with Central America and another with Colombia. But saying he would "close" markets is nonsense.

Planet Plans

Finally, we note that McCain and the Republican delegates applied a different standard to the Republican nominee's lofty rhetoric than they did to Obama's.

McCain drew applause with this line:

McCain: We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.

The previous evening, however, McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, ridiculed Obama for using similar high-sounding words:

Palin, Sept. 3: What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

That crack drew jeers and laughter. Perhaps Republicans see a distinction between "healing the planet" and "restor[ing] the health of our planet," but it escapes us.

–by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller and Emi Kolawole

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain Off Base on Sex Ed

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

September 10, 2008A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.SummaryA McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.

In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator's record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.
AnalysisThe ad is called "Education" and has received a good bit of free airtime, having been run repeatedly on cable news networks. It pairs pictures of kindergarten children with Obama looking confused.

A Factual Failure

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad: "Education"

Announcer: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education.” That he’s “elusive” on accountability. “A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.” Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.

John McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.The ad claims "Obama's one accomplishment" in the realm of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:

SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV ~~AIDS~~ or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:

SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide
for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.

The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.

Obama is often quoted as saying that when it comes to sex education in public schools, “it’s the right thing to do ... to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” placing an emphasis on the word "appropriate." But Obama has also said he does not support, "explicit sex education to children in kindergarten."

In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles:

Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate."

Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

Besides the Obama-Keyes race, this allegation also surfaced during this year's party primaries when Mitt Romney claimed Obama supported sex education for five-year-olds. (Obama misleadingly fired back that Romney supported the same policy.)

His Only Accomplishment?

The ad claims the bill was Obama's "one accomplishment." This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past "go" in the Senate. So it was not an "accomplishment" at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments.

He was a cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, which allowed for an increase in the number of Chicago charter schools and required the Chicago Board of Education to enter into a formal partnership with the Chicago Teachers Union to "advance the Chicago Public Schools to the next level of education reform." He was also a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren't U.S. citizens.

On the federal level, Obama sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007. All three amendments were passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and became law. One amendment proposed language that would create a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. He also proposed language to support summer learning programs and boost their math curricula. And he put forward a requirement that women and minorities be represented in the President's Science and Technology Summit. Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they're accomplishments nonetheless

Cherry-Picking Quotes

The ad also features three cherry-picked quotes from the media, highlighting negative comments about Obama's record and ignoring those directed at McCain. The announcer quotes Education Week contributing blogger David Hoff, saying, "Education Week says Obama 'hasn't made a significant mark on education.' " The quote is accurate. But the ad leaves out a quote Hoff gathered from Arizona's Casa Grande Elementary School Superintendent Frank Davidson:

Davidson (via Education Week): I don’t think [McCain] has a strong track record of putting education at the top of his priorities.

McCain had used the information about Obama before, and in response, blogger Hoff encouraged readers of the magazine's election blog to "Read the Obama story and the McCain story and you can decide who has a better track record on K-12 issues." We agree, you should.

The ad then quotes a July 7 editorial from The Washington Post, which said "that he's 'elusive' on accountability." Those words did appear in The Post's July 7 editorial. At the time, McCain had no education plan to critique, but later, in August, The Post revisited both candidates' proposals and said McCain's was "both late in coming and still a work in progress." It also said "of the two, Mr. Obama has given the issue more attention."

The last quote used in McCain's ad is attributed to the Chicago Tribune and says that Obama is "a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' " This is actually from a piece by Steve Chapman, former associate editor of The New Republic and contributing writer to Slate and the conservative publications The Weekly Standard and The National Review. The piece isn't a Chicago Tribune editorial at all, though it's made to appear that way in the ad. And Chapman, none too pleased about how his opinion piece was featured in the ad, responded in a Sept. 10 Tribune blog entry with this:

Chapman: ... the ad itself doesn't bother explaining how the candidates differ on school vouchers, the subject of my column. Instead, it insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught how to use condoms before they're taught to read. Right. And Joe Biden eats puppies for breakfast.

We couldn't have said it better, Mr. Chapman.

–by Emi Kolawole SourcesKrol, Eric. "Obama clarifies sex ed views at Benedictine," Chicago Daily Herald. 6 Oct. 2004.

Hoff, David. McCain vs. Obama: The Whole Story. 29 Mar. 2008. Education Week. 10 Sep. 2008.

Editorial. Focus on School Reform. 7 Jul. 2008. The Washington Post. 10 Sep. 2008.

Bill Status SB099. Illinois General Assembly.

U.S. Congressional Record. 27 Aug 2007. S5038

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Dispelling the Myth of Sarah "Hockey Mom" Palin

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
There are several stories this morning on Palin -- in addition to the reviews of her interview performance -- ranging from her asking Rick Warren for advice, more on her role in the library books controversy, her town billing for rape kits, as well as a question of ethics.

--

Palin reached out to Pastor Rick Warren for advice. "The question I asked her was, 'How can I pray for you?' " Warren said, The Hill newspaper reported online yesterday. Palin then "asked me to send her some Bible verses on how do you deal with the unfair, unjust attacks and the mean-spirited criticism that comes in," Warren said.

BOOKS: "Shortly after taking office in 1996 as mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 7,000 people, Palin asked the city's head librarian about banning books," AP writes. "Later, the librarian was notified by Palin that she was being fired, although Palin backed off under pressure. Palin alleged attempt at book-banning has been a matter of intense interest since Republican presidential nominee John McCain named her as his running mate last month. Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said Thursday that Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, on three occasions how she would react to attempts at banning books. He said the questions, in the fall of 1996, were hypothetical and entirely appropriate. He said a patron had asked the library to remove a title the year before and the mayor wanted to understand how such disputes were handled.

"Palin notified Emmons she would be fired in January 1997 because the mayor didn't feel she had the librarian's 'full support.' Emmons was reinstated the next day after public outcry, according to newspaper reports at the time." ...

"The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores. Emmons told him that year that several copies of 'Pastor I Am Gay' had disappeared from the library shelves, Bess said. 'Sarah brought pressure on the library about things she didn't like,' Bess said. 'To believe that my book was not targeted in this is a joke.'"

RAPE KITS: "When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual-assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations," AP writes. "Palin had been in office for four years when the practice got the attention of state lawmakers in 2000, who passed a bill to stop it. Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft, who sponsored that bill, said he was disappointed that asking the Wasilla Police Department to stop charging didn't work. Maria Comella, a McCain-Palin campaign spokeswoman, said Palin 'does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.' ... Alaska routinely has the nation's highest rate of sexual assault."

USA Today: "In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.

" 'In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible,' then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. 'I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.' Now that Palin is the Republican nominee for vice president, Democrats such as former Alaska governor Tony Knowles -- who signed the rape-kit bill into law and was defeated by Palin in 2006 -- are raising the issue to question Palin's commitment to women's issues and crime victims. Palin appointed Fannon after firing his predecessor shortly after she took office in 1996."

ETHICAL QUESTIONS: Bloomberg: "Palin's office approved a state job for a friend and campaign aide with whom she shared a land investment, financial records and interviews over the past two weeks show. She hired a former lobbyist for a pipeline company to help oversee a multibillion-dollar deal with that same company. She named a police chief accused of harassment to head the state police. And she sent campaign e-mails on her city hall account while serving as mayor of Wasilla -- conduct for which she later turned in an oil commissioner on ethics charges.

"These incidents raise 'some serious questions about her judgment and serious questions about her standards of ethics in public service,'' said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies in Washington. Suggesting a real estate investment partner for a job 'may be acceptable in Alaska; it would not be acceptable in Washington, D.C., a place whose norms she wants to change.'"

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

The Green Goblin Strikes Again!

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Green Screen Behind McCain Actually Lawn of, Uh, Middle School In, Uh, North Hollywood

America laughed again last night as a terrible “green screen” once again appeared behind John McCain, during his big speech at the RNC. Well, the “green” was actually the lawn of a school in North Hollywood, California. And the school is called “Walter Reed Middle School.” And the random idiot assigned the task of picking John McCain’s video background during the biggest speech of his career was apparently told to put a picture of Walter Reed Army Medical Center on the screen, and ineptly googled this utterly random California school picture, instead. And nobody knows what Walter Reed Hospital looks like, anyways, so everybody just assumed it was another one of his mansions. The school is about to release “a statement” damning McCain for inappropriately using the picture of this innocent school. All of this, as Josh Marshall notes, is exactly what happened in the movie Spinal Tap. [Talking Points Memo]

From Wonkette's Sarah K. Smith

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Pulling Palin from the Ticket...It could Happen

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

It has happened once before. Poor vetting and sensationalized stories of mental illness and drunk driving caused McGovern to jettison poor old Eagleton from the ticket. Perhaps Palin will suffer the same fate....

From Wikipedia:

Thomas Francis Eagleton was a United States Senator from Missouri, serving from 1968–1987. He is best remembered for briefly being a Democratic Vice Presidential nominee sharing the ticket under George McGovern in 1972.

Selection as vice presidential candidate

In 1972, Richard Nixon appeared unbeatable. When Senator George McGovern won the Democratic nomination for President, virtually all of the high-profile Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie and Birch Bayh turned down offers to run on the ticket.

Having been declined by the "name" Senators, McGovern turned to lesser-known candidates, and Eagleton, who had opposed the Vietnam War, was selected on July 14 with only a minimal background check. Eagleton made no mention of his earlier hospitalizations. Newspapers soon revealed them. McGovern and Eagleton initially joked about the case with Eagleton saying he would undergo a psychiatric examination if other candidates (e.g., Nixon) would do the same. But the charges kept coming. Columnist Jack Anderson wrote a column falsely accusing Eagleton of being arrested for drunk driving — a charge that Anderson had to retract.

Replacement on the ticket

McGovern said he would back Eagleton “1000%”, but on August 1, Eagleton withdrew at McGovern's request and, after a new search by McGovern, was replaced by Kennedy in-law Sargent Shriver.

A Time magazine poll taken at the time found that 77 percent of the respondents said "Eagleton's medical record would not affect their vote." Nonetheless, the press made frequent references to his 'shock therapy', and McGovern feared that this would detract from his campaign platform.[3]

McGovern's handling of the controversy was an opening for the Republican campaign to raise serious questions about his judgment. In the general election, the Democratic ticket won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

BATTLEGROUND: A DEM EDGE IN NV?

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Sep 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

From MSNBC:

NEVADA: Per state political guru Jon Ralston, Democrats now have a 76,000-voter registration edge in Nevada, 565,855 Democrats to 489,802. Ralston asks, “Think John McCain should worry yet?”

Nevada is within our reach!!! Time to phonebank and canvass!!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Standing up for Alaska: One governor, two faces

By James "Monte" Salter CD4 Valley Team leader - Aug 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

This is too easy. Me thinks McCain's penchant for former beauty queens has clouded what little sense of judgement he may have had left in his convoluted brain. Any random Googler could have done a better job of vetting than McCain's people....Sheesh!!!!

From andrewhalcro.com:

Andrew Halcro is an American politician from Anchorage, Alaska. Formerly a Republican member of the Alaska Legislature, he ran for Governor of Alaska as an Independent candidate in the 2006 election.

One of these days Governor Sarah Palin will realize that the folks back home can actually hear what she says on the road while representing Alaska. One day she will; but it certainly wasn't yesterday.

According to June Kronholz who writes for the Washington Wire, a Wall Street Journal blog covering politics, at Monday's National Governor's Association meeting, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell was addressing the group as the incoming head of the organization.

Rendell stated that his priority for his coming term would be to push for a larger investment in public infrastructure from congress. He decried the nations $1.6 trillion infrastructure deficit. However Rendell said that there would be difficulties convincing voters of the need for such investments.

Kronholz writes, "A problem for big plans like that, he added, is that such basic-needs spending is out of favor with voters. And the reason for that? “The Bridge to Nowhere,” he said, citing a pet project championed by Alaska’s Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young that was derailed following an outburst of public anger over the cost. Infrastructure “has become just a pork-barrel process in voters’ eyes,” he said."

Kronholz then wrote, "Alaska’s Gov. Sarah Palin—like Stevens, a Republican—rushed over to Rendell afterwards to remind him that she had vetoed construction of the bridge."

Let's pause and listen to that again: "Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin rushed over to Rendell afterwards to remind him that she had vetoed construction of the bridge."

According to the Ketchikan Daily News edition on August 8, 2006, this is what Sarah Palin rushed over to tell the voters of Ketchikan during the primary election campaign:

'People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,' said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth.

Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she 'would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.'”

And according to the Ketchikan Daily News on September 29, 2006 this is what Sarah Palin rushed over to tell the voters of Ketchikan during the general election campaign:

'Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.'

She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. 'We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,' Palin said.

But yet Palin, rushed over to placate Rendell who just got finished doing exactly what she said she'd defend Alaskans against.

It shouldn't surprise anyone.

Governor Sarah Palin, a CEO who couldn't bother to rush over to meet with head of the Mat Maid Dairy when things went sour, instead choosing to wave signs with angry farmers in front of television cameras.

Governor Sarah Palin, a CEO who couldn't bother to rush over to tell her Commissioner of Public Safety that she was replacing him, instead sending an acting staffer to do her dirty work.

Governor Sarah Palin, a CEO who couldn't bother to rush over to tell Ketchikan community leaders as well as the congressional delegation she planned to veto the funding for the Ketchikan bridge, instead sending out a 5:30am press release so it would hit the east coast news cycle.

But yet she rushed over to tell the Governor of Pennsylvania that she wasn't to blame for the negative publicity surrounding the same bridge she promised to fight for during her campaign.

One governor, two faces. What a bargain.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Seeking Help with Health Care Plank

By Gregg Heacock - Jul 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Fellow Campaigners,

As you probably know, Barack and the Democratic Party have opened up the process for creating planks for this year’s Democratic Platform. We are being encouraged to meet with others to formulate what we would like to see included. Before holding my own neighborhood meeting, I would like your input. You many send it to me personally at logicconex@roadrunner.com or reply through the listserv if you think it better to share your thoughts with the general group, possibly providing an incentive for professionals to hold such meetings with their peers, or “neighbors” at the worksite.

We can see that the Obama Health Care Plan is transitional. Under Obama’s plan, people can switch from their present plan to one a low-cost government plan. But, what will it cover? What options will we have?

My wife has been a nurse-midwife with Kaiser for over 20 years. Midwifery seems an option worth having. Would home births be covered? Will we be able to choose our own therapist, or counselor? Will people be confined to traditional Western-practices? Freedom of choice seems important. But, it can be controversial.

What are we willing to pay for life-support? Should hospice be actively encouraged?Tracking patients electronically raises privacy issues. It is important that we understand how that information can be restricted so that only those who establish a need-to-know can have access.Freeing up procedures and protocols could provide medical care in outlying areas where people find it difficult to receive care. How might that be done?

Americans want a plan they can envision—one that offers what people need and want.The Democratic Party has asked for our participation in putting together planks that will appeal to and serve the needs of the general public.

I am interested in what you have to say on the issues I have raised and on others that concern you.We have little time to act. I do not want to act in a vacuum. I am grateful to you who are willing to be involved in shaping the plan that will change how we offer health care in America. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Gregg Heacock

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (4) | Report Objectionable Content

A Child's Dream

By Marcia--One who believes in Dreams! - Jul 13th, 2008 at 10:17 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

As adults, we all want the opportunity to meet Barack Obama...right? Well, can you imagine a child whose only dream is to meet "someone just like her"? Please check this out and if you are so inclined, help to make this little girl's dream come true!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/reggie%20montgomery/gGxlsY/commentary

Thank you in advance for becoming involved in a great cause!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (3) | Report Objectionable Content

A Nation's Loss

By Marcia--One who believes in Dreams! - Jun 14th, 2008 at 8:46 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

A little after 4pm yesterday, I heard the news of the death of Tim Russert. This nation has certainly lost a man who was a journalist with integrity. He will be sorely missed for his tenacity of reporting the truth and his ability to make you feel like you knew him. John Edwards refers to him as "the yardstick by which every other political journalist is measured" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25130683#25152321 and Gen. Colin Powell said, "his goal was to inform the American people" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25130683#25152297 My prayers are with his family, his extended family, the NBC news team and all those who knew and loved him. Sunday morning news won't be the same without you!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

VP for Barack

By swimmer - Jun 6th, 2008 at 6:31 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Wow! I wish the media would leave the VP issue alone. Barack will pick who HE wants and who HE feels will be the best person to work with side by side.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (3) | Report Objectionable Content

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.